LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, June 6, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
ACCESS Program Funding
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS under the ACCESS
program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get
post‑secondary education and training; and
WHEREAS these students
have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including
nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal
government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in
1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment
has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts;
and
WHEREAS the provincial
government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2
million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program
which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.
WHEREFORE your petitioners
humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of Education and
Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS under the ACCESS
program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to
get post‑secondary education and training; and
WHEREAS these students
have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including
nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal
government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial government
has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment
has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts;
and
WHEREAS the provincial
government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2
million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program
which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of
Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to
ACCESS program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:
WHEREAS under the ACCESS
program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to
get post‑secondary education and training; and
WHEREAS these students
have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including
nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal
government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in
1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment
has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts;
and
WHEREAS the provincial
government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2
million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program which
effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of
Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to
ACCESS program.
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 13‑‑The Condominium Amendment
Act
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that leave be
given to introduce Bill 13, The Condominium Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi
sur les condominiums, and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 14‑‑The Real Estate Brokers
Amendment Act
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): I move, Mr. Speaker,
seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that leave be
given to introduce Bill 14, The Real Estate Brokers Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les courtiers en immeubles, and that the same be now
received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 15‑‑The Law Society Amendment
Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr.
Stefanson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 15, The Law Society Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Société du Barreau, and that the same be now
received and read a first time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 16‑‑The Provincial Court
Amendment Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that
leave be given to introduce Bill 16, The Provincial Court Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la Cour provinciale, and that the same now be received and
read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been
advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table the message.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 17‑‑The City of Winnipeg
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): I move,
seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), that leave be
given to introduce Bill 17, The City of Winnipeg Amendment and Consequential
Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Ville de Winnipeg et apportant des
modifications corrélatives, and that the same be now received and read a first
time.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 213‑‑The Immigration
Consultants Registry Act
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that leave be given to introduce Bill 213, The
Immigration Consultants Registry Act (Loi sur l'inscription des conseillers en
immigration), and that the same now be received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Kowalski: Mr. Speaker, we have seen in the past how
immigrants to our province have been exploited by unscrupulous business
people. We believe that this bill, which
creates a registry for people who hold themselves out as immigrant consultants,
is one step towards protecting new Manitobans.
I recommend this piece of legislation to all members of this
Legislature.
Motion agreed to.
* (1340)
Bill 208‑‑The Real Property
Amendment Act
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg), that leave be given to introduce Bill 208, The
Real Property Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens réels, and that
the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, this bill was originated when a
constituent of mine came forward with a very unfair situation, and it is to
deal with the situation when a homeowner is at risk for selling their property
to someone who assumes their mortgage and then has the financial institution
pursue them when the purchaser goes into arrears.
It is a fair bill.
It will create some more equity in this area. It is common sense and it is there to protect
people from the powerful financial institutions who have tried to pursue
original owners for outstanding payments when the homeowner who assumes their
mortgage falls into arrears.
I would ask all members to support this bill, and I look
forward to the chance to debate it in the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 302‑‑The Manitoba Historical
Society Incorporation Act
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that leave be given to introduce Bill 302, The
Manitoba Historical Society Incorporation Act; Loi constituant la Société
historique du Manitoba, and that the same be now received and read a first
time.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Render: Mr. Speaker, the society's original
incorporating act was repealed in 1990, and the society is now asking that this
act be passed to re‑establish its corporate status and to ensure that its
decision making since the original act was repealed is valid and enforceable.
I would urge that all honourable members support this
bill. Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us
this afternoon the Honourable Sandy Jolly, the Minister of Municipal Affairs for
the Province of Nova Scotia.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon, ma'am.
Also with us this afternoon, I would like to draw the
attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us
Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Paul Gauthier.
These gentlemen are veterans of the D‑Day invasion and were
members of the Royal Winnipeg Rifles.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
Also with us this afternoon, we have 27 representatives of
the Filipino community in Manitoba.
These visitors are under the direction of Mr. David Langtry.
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Social Safety Net Reform
Manitoba Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
There are two major federal initiatives that are scheduled to
bear fruit in terms of policy proposals by the federal government in early
June. One is, of course, to deal with
the elimination of the GST. The other
proposal is to deal with the social policy initiatives in Canada and a
revamping of the social policy programs in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, today the Financial Post is quoting‑‑and
both those initiatives have been delayed‑‑that there may be
linkages between the GST and the social policy review, that there is a desire
and a goal of the federal government to reduce social policy spending by some
$1.5 billion and that this may be linked to the elimination of the GST; in
other words, less money for the provinces and a greater flexibility in terms of
taxes for the provinces.
I would like to ask the First Minister if Manitoba is
participating in any of those discussions with the federal government, or is
the federal government initiating any of those discussions with the Province of
Manitoba?
* (1345)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raises a
very valid and important issue. The fact
of the matter is most of the provinces in Canada were asked to participate in a
conference on the social safety net review a couple of months ago‑‑all
the provinces were, I should say.
Unfortunately, there was no position paper put forward by the federal
government nor consultations that took place ahead of time that would have
involved the provinces in the development of a strategy. As a result, a number of the provinces
decided not to participate in that.
We were not one of the provinces because we do want to be
co‑operative. We do want to do the
best that we can to participate with the federal government in seeking better
answers to the funding of our very prized social safety net. On the other hand, we certainly were
concerned about the lack of a position or information to back up a proper
discussion of the issue.
With respect to the GST, my understanding is that the
Ministers of Finance, the provincial Ministers of Finance, are awaiting the report
of the federal committee that was struck under, I believe, Mr. Peterson,
Liberal member from Ontario, to go across the country and hold discussions and
listen to presentations, but we are not in a position to know anything about
the interconnection between these two initiatives. That is not something that has been shared
with me or with my colleagues.
Goods and Services Tax
Manitoba Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance of
Manitoba was quoted last week in the Chamber in a question posed by the member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) as saying that the western Finance
ministers had discussed the issue of changes in the GST and changes in the
income tax system of Canada.
Today, our Minister of Finance is quoted again in the
Financial Post, saying that provincial goals include a major reform that would
allow provinces to tax income directly, instead of collecting a percentage of
the federal income tax, this in relationship to the discussions going on with
the GST.
I would ask the Minister of Finance, could he table
Manitoba's proposal and its impact on the public of Manitoba of a proposal of
this nature?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, this is
an issue that has been on the agenda of Finance ministers certainly for several
months, if not several years, in terms of some tax reform at the provincial and
national level.
One of the initiatives has been that instead of provincial
governments charging a tax on tax, which is currently the case with our
provincial income taxes, provincial governments, I believe, if not in total
unanimity, most provinces across Canada are agreeing that a fairer process
would be a tax on income, as is the case with the federal tax. It would allow provincial governments to have
some input into tax policy. It would
also make it very transparent in terms of how those taxes are being paid, whom
they are being paid to, and obviously, enhance accountability for both levels
of government.
So that is an initiative that has been consistent, has been
on the table for many months, Mr. Speaker, and when I responded to the member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), we indicated that the western provinces
and the Territories and Yukon were going to this meeting very anxious to see
the Commons committee report on the GST.
Provinces for many months and many years have had many tax
issues on the table with the federal government, and we are saying to our
federal government that just because they made an election promise on one
particular issue, the time has come for them to address all of the tax issues
that provinces are promoting, and tax on income is certainly one of them.
Mr. Doer: I would thank the Minister of Finance for his
answer.
Mr. Speaker, this is a major issue for all Manitobans and
for all members of this Chamber. We have
the GST. We have a proposed alternative
to the GST that the Commons committee is looking at, a kind of a two‑tier,
value‑added tax. There are
different proposals in terms of its impact on provinces, harmonization,
identity of the tax, et cetera. The
Minister of Finance has indicated that they clearly want to change the way in
which the income tax is set up.
I was wondering, could the Minister of Finance table that
position and its impact on Manitobans?
It is a very, very important issue.
It is at a very important time in our history dealing with some of these
very unfair taxes that have developed in Canada. No one disputes the fact that some of the
loopholes on page 1 of the income tax system, as the member for Brandon East
(Mr. Leonard Evans) identified last week, should be eliminated, that trust
funds for a few families should be eliminated, Mr. Speaker.
We welcome that, but we would certainly want to see‑‑and
could the First Minister table what the Manitoba proposal is that the Minister
of Finance was just talking about?
* (1350)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been
dealt with not only by Finance ministers, but by First Ministers for more than
a decade. The position of the Manitoba
government is this is not intended to raise any additional revenue for our
government. It is intended to be revenue
neutral, but to make the tax system more simplified in order to be able to deal
directly with the kinds of changes that we want to bring into the system for
the benefit of Manitobans.
I might say that this goes back a long way. The predecessor administration under Mr.
Pawley brought in a 2 percent tax on net income, and they had to work through a
very convoluted system in order to impose that additional tax load. We, in a measure that was supported by New
Democrats in this House in 1989, brought in the richest system of tax credits for
taxpayers with dependants and families in this province and had to go through a
very convoluted system in order to introduce that because of the way the tax
system works, where we tax on top of tax instead of directly.
So in all these circumstances, it has been the position of
the provinces, by and large, of all political stripes that there would be a
great desire and a great benefit to simplifying the system and allowing our
income tax to be direct, as a tax on income as opposed to a tax on federal tax
and then have to put in a convoluted additional set of forms in order to give
back additional generous benefits to our Manitoba taxpayers.
It is not something that is new. It is not something that is intended to
generate additional revenue. It is
something that is intended to be helpful to the Manitoba taxpayer in the course
of any changes that we bring in.
Health Care System
Regional Boundaries
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I have before me a document that
indicates that the Department of Health has recommended that the province
outside of Winnipeg be organized into eight health care regions.
Can the minister advise the House as to whether or not the
eight districts have been finalized and what the boundaries are of those
particular districts?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as a result of the health
board's recommendation for eight regions in Manitoba, there is now an appeal
process underway. When we have the
results of the deliberations of the health board, we will be able to announce
the final number of regions and what the boundaries will be.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what
the effects of the new MMA agreement and the physician resources and the physician
allocation are with respect to the funding of those particular health regions?
Mr. McCrae: Through our phased approach to health reform,
answers to the kinds of questions the honourable member is raising today will
flow through that mechanism of building these associations and building the
governance models and the funding models for them. The answer will be forthcoming from the
bottom up.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, this is my final supplementary.
It is clear that one of the major failings of the
government's health reform has been lack of consultation and lack of input from
the public. The minister indicated that
there was an appeal process in place to deal with these eight regions and these
eight districts.
Can the minister indicate what process is in place and how
the average Manitoban, who has had no input into the minister's health reform,
can actually have some input into this decision and other decisions that are
being made?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member became somewhat
combative in his last question. I need
only remind him of the approach used in other provinces in this country where,
by the stroke of a pen, governments reduced substantially the number of
hospital boards in existence and in Saskatchewan, for example, replaced
hospital boards with their own appointees.
That is not the approach being used in Manitoba. We are using a more phased and consultative
approach. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, there
have been some 13,000 Manitobans involved in the process of renewal of our
health care system over the last few years.
That is a lot of Manitobans. Our
process has been sometimes criticized as being too consultative. I will accept that criticism, but I will not
accept the criticism of the honourable member that we are not consultative
enough.
* (1355)
The Winnipeg Jets
Provincial Auditor's Report
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
We have been advised by the Provincial Auditor's office that
either late Friday or early this morning, the Auditor's office forwarded to the
Minister of Finance a calculation of the losses which the Province of Manitoba
was responsible for as a result of the operations of the Winnipeg Jets Hockey
Club. That report was forthcoming from
Public Accounts Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance, firstly,
if he is prepared to table the Auditor's report in the Legislature today and,
secondly, if not, will he advise members of this House as to the Auditor's
projection of losses for this year and if she gave the opinion on future years
of losses that the province is responsible for as a result of the Winnipeg
Jets?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the second opposition party is correct. I, along with my colleague the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), received a copy of the Auditor's
report late Friday. I had an opportunity
this morning to go through it.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism is away
attending interprovincial trade barrier discussions. I will be talking to him either today or
tomorrow. It is our intention to release
this report as soon as possible.
Certainly this week it will be released.
It was discussed, as the member indicated, at Public
Accounts a couple of weeks ago, and it is my intention to release it as soon as
possible, as soon as I have had an opportunity to discuss it with my colleague
and to do a thorough review. So it will
be released this week, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all honourable members
look forward to receiving a copy of that report.
My supplementary for the Minister of Finance: Given that when the City of Winnipeg released
its budget forecast for losses it was responsible for, when they came up with
those opinions, which set it at $11.5 million for 1994 and $17 million for
1995, the government, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in particular, was highly
critical of those.
Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate today whether or not
the Auditor's report indicates that the city's projections, whether for the
1994 or 1995 year were, in fact, incorrect?
Given that the Premier has gone on the record as critical of these
budgetary estimates, what does the Provincial Auditor say?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, I really think it will be
appropriate to wait until that report is, in fact, tabled. All members of this Assembly will then have
an opportunity to review it, to ask questions at that time and to offer
comments, and I would be more than prepared to deal with any aspects of it in
great detail at that point in time.
It is premature for me to start discussing a report that
has not been tabled to all members of the Assembly, and I look forward to
either having questions here or ultimately back at Public Accounts on this
issue when the report is, in fact, tabled.
Burns Committee
Report Tabling Request
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Finally, for the
Premier, Mr. Speaker, the Burns committee, as all members are aware, has now
sat and met two months in excess of what their original timetable was, and
while, of course, we all want the result to be a thorough one and give them the
opportunity to make all of the investigations they deem appropriate, we are now
in the month of June.
June 30 is the deadline under the agreement the Premier
signed back in 1991. When can members
and the citizens of the province expect a report of the Burns committee?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the member answered his own
question when he said that we all want the information and the recommendations
to be thorough and to be ones that can be acted upon to the benefit of the
people of Manitoba. It is for that
reason that I do not believe it is appropriate for us to tell the committee
that they must give us any report if they do not have an answer that they
believe is satisfactory and a plan that they believe we can act upon.
I believe it is up to us to give them the time that is necessary
to try and put together a proposal that we could act upon. My understanding is that they have agreement
from Mr. Shenkarow to waive the June 30 deadline, and so, under those
circumstances, obviously the pressure becomes less to deal with the issue within
the next 30 days.
* (1400)
CN Rail/CP Rail Merger
Impact on Manitoba
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, during the last federal
election, the federal Liberals spoke of renewing our infrastructure, improving
our transportation system, reducing input costs to make farming more viable and
committing millions of tonnes of grain to the Port of Churchill. The Liberals claimed that they would follow a
different path from the Conservatives.
Since then, they have supported more cuts to VIA Rail, the
merger of CNR and CPR lines east of Winnipeg, and now are following the same
path as the former government. The now
federal Minister of Transportation says that our whole transportation system is
overbuilt and intends to eliminate $1.6 billion of support.
My question is for the Minister of Highways and
Transportation. What will happen to the
prairie provinces consultation report, and will it include what the impact of
the elimination of these subsidies will have on Manitoba taxpayers, the
producers and the communities involved?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, the member rambled on to some extent about the federal
Liberal government, and I cannot answer for the federal Liberal
government. They may do some things that
will not be very helpful for us in western Canada, particularly Manitoba, and,
in fact, we are still waiting for the million tonnes to be announced to go
through Churchill which was very clearly spelled out in the red book as an
objective of particularly the Manitoba M.P.s.
Mr. Speaker, I believe the member is referring to a study
that we have commissioned of the three prairie provinces to look at the CN‑CP
amalgamation or potential amalgamation east of Winnipeg. We have asked them to look at a wide variety
of issues as to the impact that this amalgamation might have on Manitoba and
particularly on the effect on Winnipeg as a hub of the rail transportation
industry.
Grain Transportation Subsidies
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, given that the federal Liberal
Minister of Transport is now talking about the elimination of some $590 million
in grain transportation subsidies, what plans does this government have in
place to protect Manitoba producers?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, did I understand the member to say we should accept the
offload of that sort of decision by the federal government? That is an astounding request.
Mr. Speaker, over some time, we have had discussions. I can assure the member we will not accept
that kind of offload. We have had
discussions with the grain industry, with the farmers, over the last three or
four years as to how that subsidy could be paid in a more efficient manner, and
that is all that is on the agenda as far as we are concerned.
Consultations
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): My final supplementary is to the same
minister.
Now that Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta have joined
forces to study the impact of the proposed merger and have hired a consulting
firm, can this minister tell us why it is only the shippers who are going to be
consulted? Why have we not put in place
the opportunity for consultation with rural municipalities and the public at
large, and where will these public hearings be held that only shippers are
currently involved in?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, we are looking for direct impact if the amalgamation is
proposed. If it is proposed, there will
be‑‑I think a competition bureau of the federal government will
review it, and then the National Transportation Agency will be holding
hearings.
We have requested to the federal government, if they go
that far, that the National Transportation Agency will hold hearings
particularly across western Canada, but I would imagine all of Canada, and that
will follow up if the federal government accepts that merger proposal, when and
if it shows up.
Manitoba Youth Centre
Overcrowding
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): My question is to the Minister of Justice.
At the summit on youth crime and violence held on December
4, a Crown attorney advised the participants that the Manitoba Youth Centre had
capacity for 150 youth, but that on the day before, there were 201 youth housed
at that facility. I will never forget
the reaction of participants to that announcement.
Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister: Would she confirm that there is an
overcrowding problem at the Manitoba Youth Centre?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I can say to the member that at times, there are people
within the Youth Centre of over 200.
However, within the Youth Centre, the Youth Centre has been able to make
arrangements to deal with this. The
Youth Centre has extra staffing, and we also have been double‑bunking the
young people.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand there may be some triple‑bunking
there.
Given that last week in an institution built and staffed
for 150 people there were 230 youth, would this minister‑‑that is
an increase, by the way, of 15 percent in just six months‑‑advise
this House what security risk this poses to Manitobans, including those in the
facility?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that I do
not confirm the member's numbers. As a
matter of fact, I believe the member's numbers are inaccurate. I am aware of how he tried to get those
numbers, and I believe the individual who gave the numbers to him was not
accurate in that count. So first of all,
I do not confirm the numbers.
Mr. Speaker, this brings us right back to where we always
are with the NDP‑‑where we always are. The NDP want to be lenient with
offenders. They do not want to do
anything about offenders. They have made
that clear, but the people of Manitoba do not feel that way.
Swampy Cree Tribal Council
Negotiations
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, the issue of health care reform
has been around here for over two years now.
Much has been debated during that time with respect to cutting back on
programs and services, layoffs, bed closures and so on.
One area of discussion which has clearly been absent in
this debate is how aboriginal people are being affected negatively by this
reform process, in spite of numerous representations by those groups, such as
Swampy Cree Tribal Council.
Sadly, I have to say that the impression I get from this
lack of mention of aboriginal people in this debate is that aboriginal people
simply do not matter, even though they are citizens and living around those
areas where this reform process is taking place.
My question is to the Minister of Health.
Could the Minister of Health advise this House why
negotiations have broken down between himself and the Swampy Cree Tribal
Council with respect to the 1964 agreement?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I profoundly disagree with the
honourable member when he says aboriginal people do not matter. Perhaps he and his caucus believe that, but I
and my caucus do not believe that.
In fact, when it comes to aboriginal issues, I would be
happy to compare the record of this administration with the record of the
previous one any day of the week, any time, with the honourable member here or
in his home community. The record of the
previous government with respect to aboriginal Canadians, aboriginal
Manitobans, was disgraceful, and the honourable member shows a lot of gall to
rise in his place today to make such a comment.
He also forgets to mention, Mr. Speaker, when he talks
about beds closed and jobs lost, about the numerous jobs created and the
numerous new bed openings in Manitoba.
We need to have a balanced discussion about these matters.
With respect to the issue raised about Swampy Cree Tribal
Council, there are indeed issues outstanding.
We discussed those issues at the time of the discussion of my
department's Estimates, and as far as I know, nothing has changed since that
time.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, I am also profoundly disappointed
with the response this minister gives to questions respecting aboriginal
people.
Will the minister advise the House as to whether he has any
intentions of getting those negotiations back to the table and negotiating in
good faith with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased if the
honourable member would spend more time trying to be helpful than just spending
all his time being disappointed. If he
wants to be disappointed about something, he need only look at the record of
his colleagues in his own party when they were in government for so many of the
past 20 years in Manitoba. The real
progress that we have seen with respect to aboriginal matters has been seen in more
recent years under this administration.
Mr. Lathlin: Once more, Mr. Speaker, when will this
minister convene a meeting with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council so that a
satisfactory conclusion to the health transfer negotiations can be realized?
Mr. McCrae: It might suit the honourable member for us to
meet with the members of the tribal council and ignore altogether the wishes
and needs of other people in the region, but I will not do that.
I have met with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council, and so has
the Deputy Minister of Health met with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council. There are other people involved besides
tribal council people whose rights need to be taken into account, too. It would be nice if the honourable member
would remember that.
* (1410)
Affirmative Action
Status Report
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, 11 years ago, the former
administration developed an affirmative action plan, and in asking for some
updated information on that plan, we were sent the brochure which still lists
Minister Mackling as responsible and a joint statement of this policy signed by
the then‑minister and the then‑president of the MGEA, a Mr. Doer.
Can the Minister responsible for the Civil Service
Commission indicate what progress has been made regarding employment equity
over the past 11 years? Is he prepared
to table an updated document that indicates the progress that has been made?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, receiving such an old document
does surprise me somewhat. I would ask
if the honourable member could provide me with some more information as to whom
she contacted. I do not believe it came
from my office.
I say to the honourable member that we are still very much
on track for the particular target levels that were set some years ago, but I
do say to her that one of the difficulties in the whole process over the last
three years in particular has been the change in priority to ensure that we are
able to employ as many people and deal with the adjustments in workforce as a
result of general downsizing of government.
That has been the No. 1 priority.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a supplementary question to
the same minister: Can the minister table
in this House the results of changes that have been made to employment
practices as outlined in this original document? Can he table that information with the new
document that he obviously has in his office?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I would be more than pleased to
discuss those particular issues with the honourable member for Crescentwood
when we get into the Estimates, which I understand we should be doing very
shortly.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Speaker, with a final supplementary to
the minister responsible: Given that the
Affirmative Action program is something that all Manitobans are interested in,
is he prepared to table that document now so that, in fact, we, as legislators,
can share that with the people in our constituencies?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, as so many in the opposition
benches when they rise up asking for tablings, they talk about documents that
may not even exist. If she is asking for
discussion on particular policy, I would be more than pleased to discuss that
when we get into the process, very pleased to do that.
I would again stress to the honourable member that the No.
1 priority of the Civil Service Commission over the last three years has been
workforce adjustment and ensuring that the maximum number of people who had
been affected by changes in downsizing in the civil service were found
employment in the civil service. To that
end, we have been one of the most successful governments in Canada.
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
Status Report
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, as people in this House know,
the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was created in 1988 to examine the
administration of justice and aboriginal peoples in this province. That report was tabled in 1991, and we are
just short a few months of its third anniversary.
My question is for the Minister of Justice.
I have yet to hear any word on the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry. While I realize she will have
something to say about it shortly in Estimates, I would like to ask the
minister today to state what her position is on the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry
report and for her to table the new projects funded by her department that are
AJI‑related.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, a number of the recommendations of the
AJI report, some of those recommendations apply to the provincial Ministry of
Justice, others were to be shared between the province and the federal
government and others applied very specifically to the federal government only.
As the member knows, we have been very active and very
interested in looking at the issues and working on the issues of the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry. The member well knows
that we recently signed, about two weeks ago, the interim agreement for
aboriginal policing with the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council. We are moving in the areas of aboriginal
policing and also aboriginal courts.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, as members of this House will
also realize, there are roughly 293 recommendations in the Aboriginal Justice
Inquiry. About 101 of them relate
directly to the province, and it gave the province, certainly, an opportunity
to do something meaningful for the aboriginal people of this province.
I would like to ask the same minister about the
report. Will she release her agenda for
action so that aboriginal people in Manitoba will finally see a timetable for
action?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, in working with
the recommendations from the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, a number of them do
require consultation with the communities.
I refer the member back to issues relating to aboriginal policing. In areas of policing within aboriginal
communities, the First Nations policing policy requires a consultation.
So, Mr. Speaker, the member asks me to specifically
timetable dates and he completely overlooks, as does the New Democratic Party,
the part that aboriginal communities themselves play in determining what is
their priority and what is their timetable.
They would prefer to ignore it.
Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I do commend the minister and
her department for the action that was taken on the DOTC, even though there
were several months that elapsed with the First Nations people in those eight
communities who did not receive policing services.
Aboriginal Organizations
Meeting Request
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): My final question to the minister: Will she commit herself to meet with the
Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Indigenous
Women's Collective, and release the details of the $1‑million initiative
as outlined in her Estimates?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I take great exception to the way the member asked his
question. The DOTC communities, in fact,
did receive policing. It is absolutely
wrong to say in this House that they did not receive policing. That is absolutely wrong. I am sure the member did not intend to say
that. I certainly hope that he did not.
In terms of future initiatives, I will be speaking about
those all during the Estimates of the Department of Justice and, in addition to
that, in the opportunity that we have very specifically to speak about aboriginal
justice initiatives.
Arts Act
Government Commitment
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Five years ago, the DeFehr commission on the arts in
Manitoba made its report, and subsequently, the government has taken up one or
two of the recommendations of that report and has altered some of the
responsibilities within the department and begun a review of arts curriculum in
Manitoba, but five years on, Mr. Speaker, there has been no movement on one of
the most fundamental recommendations of that commission, and that was for an
arts act in Manitoba.
I want to ask the minister if he is committed, as his
predecessor was committed, to bringing forward an arts act for Manitoba.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): I can tell the member that discussions within
the department and within the community are continuing on that issue. There are a number of funding issues that are
also under consideration and those discussions are ongoing.
Ms. Friesen: Well, five years after the report, could the
minister undertake now to take that first step and table a discussion paper on an
arts act in Manitoba, so that there might be some public discussion on this?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I want to assure the member that
discussions are going on within the arts community with the Manitoba Arts
Council and other groups.
Recently, I was in Brandon and had an opportunity to meet
with a number of individuals who are on the board and who show their works at
the Art Gallery of Southwestern Manitoba.
I intend to meet with other groups, as well, in the near future.
Manitoba Arts Council
Reporting Process
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Does the minister intend to adopt one of the
additional recommendations of the DeFehr Report and that was to enable the Arts
Council of Manitoba to report annually directly to a legislative committee?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, the discussions on that issue
are still ongoing. I have met with the
Arts Council on a number of occasions and looked at the mandate that they have. I look forward to getting into further
discussions during the Estimates process with the member.
* (1420)
Serial‑Killer Cards
Manitoba Position
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, the federal parliamentary
justice committee is currently studying proposed legislation to ban the sale of
U.S.‑made serial killer cards and board games which, by the way, use dead
babies as markers. The cards, which are
similar to hockey or baseball cards, have pictures of murderers on one side and
details of their crimes on the other.
I would like to ask the Minister of Justice what this
government's position is on that legislation.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, we had an opportunity as Ministers of Justice across Canada
to have some discussion in this area. We
are certainly very, very concerned about that particular issue of cards and
very concerned about the impact on young people. I expect to have continued opportunity to
speak to the federal minister about the issue.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, general concern is all very well
and good, but has the Minister of Justice and her government done anything
specific, like make a presentation in writing on this provincial government's
support for this proposed legislation or their concerns with potential elements
of this legislation? Does the federal
government know specifically what the Manitoba government's position is on this
legislation?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the member, this was
a subject of discussion at the meeting of ministers across Canada, Ministers of
Justice across Canada, and I believe the federal government does know our
position.
However, if the member is asking for further action, always
that is, in an important area, something which we are more than willing to put
forward, as has been shown in this House before.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
of Justice today, why, when this has been on the federal books‑‑either
this legislation or an earlier piece of legislation by the previous government‑‑or
in the discussion phase for over two years, she thinks it would be a good idea
to make a presentation?
Why has she not put specifically in writing directly to the
federal justice committee what the Province of Manitoba's position is on this?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I believe my statements, when
the member reads them in Hansard, she will see were much stronger than, I
think. The member knows, when she reads
my comments in Hansard, it will also deal with the fact that I have had direct
discussion with the federal Minister of Justice on this matter.
Manitoba Telephone System
Cable Network
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System.
Approximately a week ago, the CRTC issued a statement
encouraging provincially owned utilities, telephone utilities, to become
involved in the cable system around the country. That was a specific policy directive that
came out approximately a week ago, Mr. Speaker.
Has this caused the minister and the Manitoba Telephone
System to reconsider or rethink in any way their agreement with the consortium
of 13 private cable companies to, in effect, sell off the cable network that
they are selling off under that agreement to that consortium?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, no, it has not. What Manitoba Telephone System owned here was
simply the distribution cable. MTS was
not involved in any broadcast or transmission on that.
This was the only province in which that happened in all of
Canada, so what we did in no way interferes with the ability of cable to
compete in telephone or telephone to compete in cable in the future, if that is
the wish or the will of CRTC.
Mr. Edwards: It is my understanding that the CRTC was, in
fact, inviting telephone utilities to expand their horizons into at least joint
venturing, broadcast and transmission services around the country.
Given that is what we have sold off, the direct network
that is being sold to the group of 13, does that in any way limit, in the
minister's view, the ability of MTS to, in a sense, grow and expand into those
markets?
Mr. Findlay: No, I do not believe so, Mr. Speaker. As I mentioned when we made the announcement,
a microwave system for rural Manitoba, the first to be built in North America,
will be built here, so obviously MTS was not in that.
The existing system the people are purchasing that the 13
broadcasters are going to rebuild means the system that was there was not going
to serve the purpose in the future.
So the system is being rebuilt by the industry and is in
the process of negotiation, the ability to joint venture in various ways and
means in the future. Those doors were
not closed.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Philippine Heritage Week
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable First Minister have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, on Friday, as Manitobans began a
weekend‑long series of special events leading up to the 50th anniversary
of D‑Day, today, I was pleased to make a ministerial statement on D‑Day
in this Legislative Assembly.
Fifty years ago today, D‑Day was a major turning
point in the battle for democracy, independence and freedom around the world.
Today I am pleased to ask all honourable members to join
with me in recognizing another historic world event whose cornerstone lies in
the quest for these same noble ideals.
This week Manitobans are joining people around the world in celebrating
Philippine Heritage Week. This special
week of celebration is centred around the declaration of Philippine
independence 96 years ago.
The observance of the 96th anniversary of Philippine
Independence Day on June 12 is an understandably special event for Filipinos
here and throughout the world. People
gave their lives to maintain freedom within their country. The respect owed to events such as this
recognition of Philippine independence goes well beyond the boundaries of
culture, heritage or religion. The 96th
anniversary of Philippine independence is very significant for all people of
the world for it reminds us that no one is ever alone in their struggle to live
in peace, freedom and democracy.
The many cultural and festive activities planned this week
in Manitoba highlight the vibrant culture of a proud people. They celebrate a culture that Filipinos have
fought to preserve and protect.
I was delighted to sign a proclamation earlier today
recognizing Philippine Heritage Week in Manitoba. The celebration of our cultural heritages
continues to be a significant positive factor in the enrichment of the quality
of life we enjoy in Manitoba.
The many activities scheduled this week in celebration of
Filipino heritage, with all its exciting traditions and customs, reminds us of
the value of sharing and understanding each other's culture.
We must also remember these celebrations do not just
happen. One of the most important
factors in the success of the outstanding events and observances within our
community is the volunteers who make them a reality. Volunteers provide the energy, commitment and
dedication which keeps the multicultural mosaic of Manitoba active and
exciting.
I wish to commend the volunteers who give so much to keep
the Filipino culture a strong participant within our multicultural
framework. Events such as Philippine
Heritage Week help us to value the many dimensions of diversity and
citizenship. They serve to foster
understanding, mutual respect and harmony among all ethnocultural communities,
factors essential for the stability and strength of our province.
Please join me in extending best wishes to the Filipino
community for a very successful Philippine Heritage Week. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the official
opposition have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour and a
privilege to rise with the Premier today and pay tribute to Philippine Heritage
Week here in Manitoba, and, of course, the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos)
spoke on this issue on Thursday outlining the many events that would take place
starting this weekend.
It is appropriate that the Premier mentioned D‑Day,
because last night I was at a Phillipine event sponsored by our local
Phillipine community, a cultural event with singers, dancers and many
participants who were raising money for the Manila YM‑YWCA through the
Manitoba YM‑YWCA.
Mr. Speaker, as one of the skits unfolded talking about the
average members of the Phillipines country fighting for democracy‑‑and
it a major skit on people, farmers, workers, business people, rising up to
fight for democracy in the Phillipines‑‑the Consul General's wife
Mrs. Guzman said to me when I was sitting there that this is our D‑Day. So the comments of the Premier today are very
applicable to what I experienced last night at that event at the Mennonite
Centre.
Mr. Speaker, it was 96 years ago that independence was
achieved, and it is a very, very major event.
There are heroes of that struggle from the Philippines that are
remembered this week during this
Independence Week. It is also a
tremendous celebration of the Philippine culture and the Philippine
contributions to Manitoba, to Canada and to the world.
I am always struck, Mr. Speaker, at this Heritage Week at
the tremendous love of our country that the Philippine community has. The Canadian flags are in many of the skits;
Canadian flags, along with the Philippine colours and flags, are prevalent
throughout the demonstrations that we saw last evening. This is consistent with my experience.
I remember being in the middle of the Meech Lake experience
and also going to the Philippine Heritage Week and always struck by that if
everyone could have this love of Canada, what a great way to solve all our
petty differences in our beautiful country.
It really comes true to us that take sometimes this country for granted,
this tremendous pride in Canada and tremendous respect for the homeland in the
Philippines.
You are right, Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is
correct. It is a celebration of culture,
heritage and religious freedom. It is a
tremendous event with the number of volunteers, whether it is the picnic next
weekend, the raising of the flag yesterday, the event that I participated in
with the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) last evening‑‑a
tremendous number of volunteers. Last
evening alone I know that I was hosted by an old friend, Les Crisostomo, who
greeted me at the door and chaired by Poy Gomez and a number of other,
literally hundreds of volunteers, and this is, of course, what happens right
throughout the week.
Mr. Speaker, as we celebrate democracy here in Manitoba, it
is very fitting that we celebrate together the Philippine Heritage Week. We want to pay tribute, along with the
Premier, to the tremendous volunteers and the tremendous dedication to not only
making this week a success, but also making our province a tremendously diverse
and culturally rich province with economic ambitions and democratic freedoms,
all part of the culture of the Philippine Heritage Week. Thank you very, very much.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, on
behalf of the Liberal caucus and the Legislature, I want to share comments with
the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in recognizing Philippine Heritage
Week here. This week, of course,
commemorates the 96th anniversary in the Philippines of the declaration of
Philippine Independence Day.
Mr. Speaker, we often speak in all parties about
multiculturalism in a generic sense, and we, of course, all support the concept
that Canada has grown to be a multicultural community. However, this particular opportunity, I
think, gives me and, indeed, my other friends in the Legislature an opportunity
to really talk about what it means in the day‑to‑day life of our
communities and our citizens.
* (1430)
The fact is I am very privileged to have a number of
Filipino families living in my constituency.
I have seen first‑hand over the years that I have represented that
area and those neighbourhoods the enormous contribution of those families, not
only to the cultural make‑up of this city and this province and this
country, but indeed to the everyday activities of the communities they live
in. There are 35,000‑plus Filipino
citizens in this province, and they make an enormous contribution in things
which I think are not specific to them being from the Philippines, but simply
as good Canadian citizens. My friend the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has made comment of that, and I can
certainly vouch for that in the day‑to‑day activities of the
constituency I represent.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, they are hardworking, industrious,
family‑oriented communities that are hard at work all across this
province enriching our lives in all kinds of ways. My caucus and I salute the efforts of that
community in building this country.
While not with the first wave of immigrants, obviously, as they have
come to this country, they have worked from within the existing structure to
enhance it.
Mr. Speaker, I want to, of course, recognize the events of
this week, and I want to indicate, as all members, I am sure, here will be
doing, that I will be attending a number of those events and looking forward
greatly to them. I have already had the
opportunity to attend some of them, in particular, the flag‑raising
ceremony which took place sponsored by the Filipino veterans association. I know that, from speaking to my colleague
the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), it was an extremely important event
and extremely symbolic and significant in terms of our understanding of the
history of the Philippines and their role in Canada and in Manitoba currently.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I want to specifically recognize
the organizing committee, the co‑ordinating committee, for the 1994
Philippine Heritage Week. With the
number of events, this is an enormous task and one that, I am sure, takes most
of the year to organize and culminates in this week. The chairperson, Sheila Ramos; the vice‑chairs,
Julie Esteban, Etta Pangilinan; secretary, Philip Pascual; treasurer, Manny
Reyes; auditor, Cory Juan. These are
just a few of the names. These are
people in the key positions in this co‑ordinating committee, and I
certainly do not mean to leave out the many others who are going to put a lot
of effort into this week. That co‑ordinating
committee, in particular, I believe, here in the Chamber deserves special
recognition as having put in an enormous amount of effort to ensure that this
week yet again is a large success.
I want to conclude by just saying that I appreciate, as a
non‑Filipino, the enormous effort this community makes to reach out to
members of the community who are not directly members of the Filipino community
but are from other communities. The
Filipino community is eager to share its culture and its heritage, and that is
indeed appreciated by me and by the members of our caucus. We look forward to sharing with this
community in the events during this week and wish the organizers and the
members of the community another successful celebration. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Broadway have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted for the
recognition that my fellow Canadians have accorded the Philippine heritage,
including a week‑long celebration dedicated for the purpose.
In North America, no one had ever confronted war in its
face, directly confronting their own homeland like the North American soil, but
I have seen war face to face when I was a young man. I have watched the dogfights in the air. I was unaware that I could be killed. When the Japanese came over, I appreciated
the idea of freedom and justice.
The Philippines have been the show window of democracy in
the Far East, and we are proud of that fact.
We have been under slavery for 300 years under the Spaniards, and it is
due to this that one of our national heroes, Dr. Jose Rizal, had written novels
as well as poems. I will give a sample
of one he had written, with the permission of the House and the Speaker. This is called Mi Ultimo Adios, My Last
Farewell. He said:
Spanish spoken.
Those are just two stanzas, Mr. Speaker. I like to push it to the end because it is
too long. I will recite the last stanza.
Spanish spoken.
Mr. Santos: To die is to rest. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the honourable member for
Broadway now to provide Hansard with a translation of what the honourable
member has just said.
Ma‑Anne Dionisio‑‑Dora Mavor
Moore Award Nomination
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to inform the
members of the House that one of Manitoba's most talented young performers has
been nominated for a very prestigious award.
Ma‑Anne Dionisio, an excellent actress and singer with her
Filipino community, has been nominated for a Dora Mavor Moore award.
Ma‑Anne drew national attention to Manitoba when she
was selected from an enormous number of auditioning performers last year to
play in the lead role in the play Miss Saigon.
As the largest theatrical undertaking in the history of the Canadian
stage, this $20‑million production focused national and international
attention on this young lady.
Ma‑Anne has proven to countless audiences during the
past year that she is truly star material and as Miss Saigon has played to rave
reviews ever since opening night. Ma‑Anne's
brilliant creation of the main character Kim has showcased her extraordinary
vocal talents. This, in turn, has
brought her the great honour of being nominated for a Dora Mavor Moore award in
recognition of her achievements.
Ma‑Anne has had a remarkable and a very distinguished
career and has become an outstanding role model for all youth in our
community. The nomination for this award
is national recognition of what we already know here in Manitoba, that Ma‑Anne
is one of the most talented and outstanding performers.
I ask the members of this House to join with me in wishing
Ma‑Anne all the best in her career and congratulating her on this
prestigious nomination. Thank you.
Transcona Sports Weekend Tournaments
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Transcona have
leave for a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, in 1986 the Transcona sports
weekend tournaments started activities and during this first year some 16 teams
participated. Sporting events included
both soccer and baseball. Over the past
nine years, this nonprofit event has grown to a point where this past weekend
there were some 90 soccer teams, 46 baseball teams and 115 young people
involved in the Kids of Steel triathlon.
In total, approximately 2,300 young people ranging in ages
from under six to 15 years participated.
Some 1,900 trophies were awarded to the participants, the finalists and
the event winners. Teams came from all
parts of Winnipeg and some rural areas and had much praise for the organizers
of this event. This event may be the
largest in the province, Mr. Speaker.
I had the opportunity to present many of the trophies to
the participating youth. I thank the
Transcona Sports Weekend organizers and volunteers for exceptional jobs. The volunteers are as follows: Wayne Tucker, Dave Dueck, Bob Madams, Bob
Sitter, Cathi Champagne, Don Champagne, Robin Mitchell, Keith Cahoon, Ken
Langlotz, Bob Johnson and Darryl Chody.
These people have done an exceptional job on behalf of the youth of our
city of Winnipeg, and I thank them for the participation that they have shown
and the dedication they have shown over the years. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Dr. Laurie E. Evans‑‑Professor
Emeritus, University of Manitoba
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Crescentwood
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
* (1440)
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me
to rise today to pay tribute to Dr. Laurie E. Evans who was honoured with the
title of professor emeritus at the University of Manitoba Convocation June 1,
1994.
The honour of professor emeritus is conferred upon a select
few individuals who have held the professorial rank, have retired as members of
the teaching staff and, in the opinion of the board of governors, have rendered
distinguished service to the university and to the scholarly profession.
Dr. Evans is certainly a worthy recipient. He received his Bachelor of Science in
Agriculture at the University of Saskatchewan, his Master of Science and his
Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Manitoba.
Dr. Evans began his career at the Manitoba campus in
1958. He is a specialist in cytogenetics
and served as head of the Department of Plant Science, the Faculty of
Agriculture from 1980 to 1988. His
accomplishments in the field of plant science are noteworthy and numerous.
As a colleague of mine in the Legislature and as a true
friend, Dr. Evans reflects qualities of humanitarianism, wisdom, a seeker of
knowledge and he exhibits a humbleness about his own success.
Robert Louis Stevenson wrote about success and its
meaning. I would like to repeat those
words as they capture much about Dr. Laurie E. Evans: "That man is a success who has lived
well, laughed often and loved much; who has gained the respect of intelligent
men and the love of children; who has filled his niche and accomplished his
task; who leaves the world better than he found it, whether by an improved
poppy, a perfect poem or a rescued soul; who never lacked appreciation of
earth's beauty or failed to express it; who looked for the best in others and
gave the best he had."
I am sure all members of this House will join me in
recognizing the efforts of Dr. Laurie E. Evans.
Thank you.
50th Anniversary of D‑Day
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gerry McAlpine
(Sturgeon Creek): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on
this 50th anniversary of D‑Day. This
is a solemn occasion because, while it does mark the beginning of the end of
the Second World War, it is also a time to remember those young soldiers who
did not come home again.
Many of the young soldiers who fought violently in Normandy
have made it a part of their life's work to educate young people about the
horror of war. Two of those men are here
today, Mr. Speaker, and you introduced them to this Chamber: Mr. Jack Thompson and Mr. Paul Gauthier of
the Royal Winnipeg Rifles, also known as the Little Black Devils. These two gentlemen joined me this morning at
Golden Gate School and spoke about the importance of remembering and
understanding the significance of D‑Day.
The audience was a group of 85 to 90 Grade 9 students and their
teachers.
I want to acknowledge Mr. Thompson and Mr. Gauthier for
their courage on D‑Day and the subsequent weeks as they fought to
liberate France, but I also want to acknowledge their courage for allowing
themselves to once again revive those terrible memories of the actual battles.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to use this occasion to thank
them not only for their leadership in helping to educate our young people, but
I would also like to thank them for their efforts to make Canada the great
country it is today.
In addition to those two gentlemen who are our guests here
today, I would also like to include several names known to me, to put their
names on the record for the occasion, who were unable to be here because of the
previous commitments as members of the Winnipeg Rifles and Fort Garry
Horse. I included Mr. Gordon Sheppard,
Mr. Kelly MacTier, Ted Kaiser, Paul Martin, Ernie Tayler, Gordon McQueen, J.C.
Stoneman, Len Smith, Robert Smellie, Allen Grant and Larry Salisbury.
I would also like to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by thanking Mr.
Henry Wiebe, the principal, and Mrs. Jane MacLean, a teacher at Golden Gate,
for accommodating me on this special recognition this morning. Thank you.
National Transportation Week
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Highways and
Transportation have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make all members of this House aware of
National Transportation Week, which is being held across Canada this week from
June 5 to 11. It is being held to
celebrate the contribution of Canadian transportation workers to the economic
and social development of Canada. This
specially designated week provides the opportunity for all sections of the
transportation industry to consider ways to increase efficiency, to discuss new
developments in policy and to focus on industry safety, technology and
developments in environmental issues. It
is also a time to help Canadians learn that transportation plays a very vital
role in the daily lives of all Canadians.
Tremendous co‑ordination and co‑operation
between the various transportation sectors have been necessary to organize this
week's events on both the provincial and national scale. The fact is, both co‑ordination and co‑operation
underscore this year's National Transportation Week theme, Intermodalism: The Perfect Fit. The highlight of this week in Winnipeg here
will be the Wednesday awards luncheon, at which time special recognition awards
will be made to honour the individuals who have made outstanding contributions
to transportation development.
Mr. Speaker, I recommend that any member of the House who
has a chance to participate in the events this week should so do. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Transcona have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my comments
with those of the Minister of Highways and Transportation in recognizing
National Transportation Week. We
recognize the importance of transportation to our province and to our
country. We know that it provides a
great number of jobs and services to many Manitobans and, of course, my own
community of Transcona is one of those many communities of our province that
has its history tied to the transportation sector of our province and our
country.
So I join with the minister in recognizing National
Transportation Week, Mr. Speaker. Thank
you for the opportunity.
YMCA 150th Anniversary
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. Vital have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
mark the 150th anniversary of the YMCA, the Young Men's Christian
Association. In these 150 years, it has
provided a variety of services to countless people in communities over the
world. For instance, the Y has played a
major role in promoting lifelong learning by introducing night school to this
country. It has also advanced physical
fitness and healthy well‑being among Canadians. It has helped to develop quality child
care. It has helped to set professional
standards for the operation of community services. It has initiated international development
projects. It has called attention to the
changing social conditions affecting Canadian youth and actively responding to
them.
Here in Manitoba the Y has been in operation since
1879. I think all of us are aware and
can appreciate the great work that it has done in our communities. Last year alone the Y worked with over 58,000
Manitobans. It helped Manitobans through
health, fitness and recreational programs, and, in addition, many families use
the Y child care and others participated through the Y programs such as
camping, employment preparation and training, literacy and English‑language
training. The services the Y offers are,
without a doubt, invaluable and irreplaceable in all of our communities.
* (1450)
In my community of St. Vital the south family Y plays an
important role. I have seen firsthand
some of the great work that it has accomplished. For instance, the south family Y offers a
drop‑in centre and leadership development for youth. It also has sports leagues and classes for
both adults and young people and family time with children.
These activities contribute to the physical, spiritual,
mental and social needs of our community and are a local demonstration of the
success of the Y's principle of a holistic and balanced approach to human development.
I know many members of this House are also members and
supporters of the Y. Therefore, Mr.
Speaker, I hope that all members of the Legislature will join with me to
congratulate the Y on 150 years of success and service all over the world, and
we look forward to another 150 years.
Thank you.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to announce that the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
will sit on Tuesday, June 21, at 10 a.m. to consider the 1993 report of
Manitoba Hydro.
The committee on Municipal Affairs will sit on Thursday,
June 23, at 10 a.m. to consider the report of the North Portage Development
Corporation.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
government House leader for that information.
* (1500)
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Environment; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs.
Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Justice.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Environment.
Does the honourable Minister of Environment have an opening
statement?
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister
of Environment): Yes, I do.
I have a rather lengthy statement.
I will not be reading all of it, but I have a copy for the Hansard
reporters. Presumably, they will be able
to pick out what I said and what I did not.
As we proceed with the overview of our priorities and
direction for '94‑95, I should take the opportunity to thank staff in the
department. We are a very small
department and seem to be consistently, as rightfully we should be, involved in
activities in a large percentage of the natural resources side of government,
and everyone within the department is certainly expected to carry their full
share in order to accomplish it with the staff complement we have, and I do
appreciate that.
I should put on record first of all the departmental
mission, which is to ensure a high quality of environment for present and
future generations of Manitobans. I
think the department has a high degree of technical competence, a sound
reputation across the country in water quality objectives, harmonization, ozone
depleting substances control. Those are
areas where Manitoba has been recognized as being very competent and perhaps in
some areas leading the country, particularly in ozone depleting substances
legislation. We do have a very advanced
legislative regime, a long record of interdepartmental action and co‑operation
and, of course, interprovincial co‑operation.
I think that this department along with Government Services
has a very effective emergency response program, and I sense a very good level
of morale and purpose among the members of the department. The strategies that we are pursuing at this
juncture are harmonization of effort at the national level through CCME;
building partnerships with local governments, provincial departments and industry;
focusing on regional solutions and developing innovative approaches to
enforcement; developing alternative approaches to command and control and
placing greater reliance on targets, objectives and standards rather than
prescribing specific technologies or approaches; extending resources through
involvement of others using delegation and empowerment.
I suppose the recent changes made to the ozone depleting
substances regulation is a good example of the latter.
The department is involved in the continuous improvement
initiative and recently introduced a continuous improvement process to seek and
implement ways and means of continuously improving how work is done in order to
meet client expectations of quality service.
We look at everyday work process, from responding to a
complaint, to filling out a form, to devising a departmental corporate
strategy, and then determining ways that we can do it better, easier, more
efficiently and more effectively.
A departmental continuous improvement steering committee
has been formed and continues to improve.
A plan has being developed. A
number of departmental staff participate in training programs to become more
knowledgeable in respect to this initiative.
A number of subcommittees have been struck to carry out client survey,
employee survey, and focus groups for a comprehensive and ongoing
communications plan.
An extensive client survey is presently being completed
involving a survey of approximately 1,500 departmental clients. We have conducted four focus groups in the
South‑Central Region and have initiated internal communications on this
project. Part of that employee survey is
being completed as we speak.
* (1510)
As changes and improvements are identified, teams will be
struck to implement the needed changes.
The Manitoba Department of Environment and officials of Environment
Canada and respective government services departments are engaged in
discussions to explore the feasibility of colocating our departmental
operations at a common location. This is
a rather unique opportunity because what we want to do is establish a one‑stop,
common environmental centre to support at a minimum the provision of federal
and provincial environmental services to the Manitoba public, put a tangible
physical face on federal‑provincial environmental harmonization, to
consider colocation of other environmental organizations with the federal and
provincial environmental departments and to effect cost savings to both
organizations by sharing support services.
Both Environment Canada Winnipeg offices and Manitoba
Environment are, as it turns out, seeking new office space at approximately the
same time, and both operations could share certain common needs for laboratory,
library, emergency response space, equipment calibration, et cetera. Although this is still a concept in its early
stages, there are some principles that have been agreed to, that the space must
be publicly accessible and publicly friendly, the space must be staff and
operational friendly, and must be environmentally acceptable.
A number of opportunities that will possibly emerge from
this: the achievement of space savings;
the opportunity for a one‑stop approach to environmental issues within
the province, something that has long been a problem not only in Manitoba but
in other jurisdictions across the country‑‑anything we can do to
improve true harmonization of federal and provincial services in the area of
environment is indeed important, and if shared facilities would help facilitate
communication and improve the delivery to the public, then it is certainly a
worthwhile goal‑‑potential common, shared services for purchasing
of supplies, administrative support, and financial services; a number of
operational harmonizations may be feasible in water quality; sharing of certain
special equipment.
This is certainly something that is far from being a
definitive decision, but it is an area that is quite interesting and has some potential
in the broadest sense for improvement of environmental response and management
in this province.
The department has what I consider a first‑rate
emergency response capability, received 366 calls on the emergency system last
year involving 225 environmental accidents and 160 onsite responses by
staff. The emergency response staff also
participated in a 40‑hour training program to train responders to OSHA
standards. I continue to be more than
satisfied with the way the responders within our department have been able to
respond to situations they have been faced with up to this point.
The Ozone Depleting Substances program under the Waste
Reduction and Prevention Initiatives, the Manitoba Ozone Protection Industry
Association took over most of the responsibility of the ozone program. The Manitoba government maintains
responsibility for enforcement and regulation and will maintain our federal‑provincial
liaison.
Now that the initial implementation phase of the ozone
depleting substance regulations has been completed, the program activities
relating to training, information and technical support have been transferred
to the Manitoba Ozone Production Industry Association to provide technicians,
the public and other stakeholders with information regarding ozone depleting
substances.
This organization is made up of industry and environment
representatives, has a mandate to be a nonexclusionary association, and
participation is welcome to everyone that is affected by the current
legislation and/or ozone depleting substances.
The Manitoba government and MOPIA maintain a liaison on
issues regarding enforcement and ozone depleting substances regulation, an
example of where I believe we have been able to co‑opt the industry into
doing a lot of the education and support work out there so that we can stick
with our core mandate, which is enforcement and protection of the environment
as it relates to ozone depleting substances.
The beverage container packaging regulation is another area
where we have been quite busy all year.
This regulation applies to ready‑to‑serve beverages sold in
sealed containers except for dairy products and instant formula. Since the regulation came into effect in '92,
an increased recovery trend has been observed with respect to a variety of
container types including nonrefillable, aluminum, liquor, glass, glass
containers overall. Recovery targets,
however, have not been achieved with respect to certain containers, and we will
continue to press for improvements in this area.
It is known that the regulation provides for additional
assessment should container recyclers not collect enough containers. Obviously, this is related to the initiative
that we have taken on multimaterial recycling within the last month, and we
will probably be discussing that further, either now or in the next few days,
but beverage containers will play an important part in underwriting the system
of multimaterial recovery as we move in that direction.
It should be noted that we have been receiving levies from
the beverage container industry in excess of a half a million dollars for the
failure to meet targets that were laid out a year ago.
There are a number of initiatives underway in the newspaper
recycling area. A number of regional
recycling networks have been established.
We now have in excess of 57 municipalities and 160,000 people outside of
the province that are served by regional recycling networks.
The Manitoba Association of Regional Recyclers has now been
established in '92 to co‑ordinate our regional recycling activities. The member organizations are processing in
excess of 500 tonnes of old newspaper per month. In excess of 6,000 tonnes of
ONP is being recycled annually in this province. Market demand is high, and there is no known stockpiles
of ONP in the province for which a market cannot be found.
The City of Winnipeg has begun more aggressively with its
multimaterial depots and a number of private‑sector recycling companies
are busy at providing curbside service, but of note, Versatech Industries now
has 3,500 tonnes of ONP annually that it handles and projects an ability to
market up to 9,000 tonnes. Pine Falls is
proposing the construction of a significant de‑inking facility and
currently recycles about 5,000 tonnes of ONP from the midcontinent region.
The program that I would like to point to with some pride
that is working quite well is the Used Tire Management Program, providing
financial support to the tire recycling companies to encourage used tire
recycling. The program is funded via the
environmental protection tax on tires, soon to become a levy rather than a tax.
The industry in Manitoba has increased its capacity to
recycle used tires from 70,000 to in excess of 600,000 tires per year, and we
are expecting additional investment of both tire recycling and tire retreading,
so we are close to striking a balance between what is being taken out of the
waste stream and what is being added to the waste stream on a monthly
basis. That is about as close to a
completely operational tire recycling program as you are likely to get. We do not yet, however, have the capacity to
deal with the large off‑road tractor tires and motor graders, those type
of tires, but that capacity will be developed as the market unfolds.
The program provides subsidies to municipal governments to
help clean up their stockpiles at waste disposal grounds. Twelve landfills have been cleaned up so far
and nine companies are currently registered under the program to be eligible
for receiving credit. Rate of payment to
registered companies is based on the four‑R hierarchy, the amount of
processing occurring in Manitoba and analysis of the cost of the project. The current range is from $1.50 per tire to
$2.50 per tire and funds are only advanced when the tire products are sold.
Draft tires storage guidelines are being circulated and
WRAP regulation will be developed, which will allow us to move from a tax to a
levy for managing this product.
Oil recycling: We
are currently working with industry, because there is an increasing demand that
is now available for consumption of used oil to the point where it would be to
everyone's advantage, and particularly the environmental effectiveness of
getting used oil out of the waste stream, I think, can be run quite
appropriately using market forces as the demand for this product is growing.
An industry group is examining stewardship possibilities
for used oil across the prairie provinces, and our program will obviously be
ready‑made to help stimulate some activity on this front if the capacity
to recycle the material is developed.
The department intends to continue designations under the
hazardous waste definition though, and that is still under some discussion as
to what is the best route to handle the materials. Certainly we need across‑Canada
uniformity in how this material is ultimately to be handled, particularly if we
are talking about regional co‑operation.
* (1520)
Just a couple of words on the Regional Waste Management
program. It was established in '92 to
investigate the feasibility of developing regional landfills. A total of $400,000 was allocated to 22
projects from the Sustainable Development Innovations Fund for fiscal years '91
through '94.
The response in quality proposals submitted has been very
positive. Seven proposals in '91‑92,
10 in '92‑93 and five received in '93‑94. Matching grants to a maximum of $20,000 were
made to groups and municipalities interested in investing in the feasibility of
establishing the regional waste management system.
While there are not a lot of areas where you can point to
large regional recycling capability being established, almost all of the
province now has a significant amount of information about the volumes and the
capabilities of working with adjacent jurisdictions for establishing regional
facilities. That information will allow
them to direct it to something other than regional sites if they wish, but to
choose what they believe is ultimately the most appropriate regional or single
approach to management of their solid waste.
This was, of course, all driven because we have now
required more of a controlled process at our land sites and improper burning
has been more or less eliminated, almost completely eliminated I guess would be
the correct way to characterize it. In
fact, I sense a very high level of desire to be co‑operative among
municipalities at this juncture.
Many areas simply will not be able to participate in
regional plans, and we were working with those local governments to make sure
that they have appropriate solid waste management options that are within their
means and still provide the environmental protection that is needed.
As the members are no doubt aware, in July of '93 I
announced the initiation of an industry‑supported multimaterial
program. Those negotiations were
proceeding towards the development of a Canadian industry packaging stewardship
initiative, but we were unable to bring those negotiations to an appropriate conclusion. The department has embarked on doing some
work on the revision to The WRAP Act to make sure we have complete confidence
in the capability of the act for us to, by regulation, provide a program that
is very much the same concept that was put forward by the Canadian industry
packaging and stewardship initiative.
Under the new regulatory framework, businesses responsible
for packaging and paper which becomes waste will share the responsibility for
managing these wastes through the proposed stewardship program of the
designated products and materials. The
levy placed on these materials will be to fund both recycling efforts and give
business a direct market base incentive to reduce those wastes. Again, I reference the used tire program
where market‑based incentive, I believe, is working well.
We will be working with municipalities, industry
participants, newspaper publishers and the general public to develop a program
which aims to bring recycling to approximately 75 percent of Manitoba's
households and reduce packaging waste in this province by 50 percent by the
year 2000. Implementation committees to
get programs up and running this year in Winnipeg and the communities outside
the city are being formed.
Draft legislation‑‑as I indicated, we will be making
amendments that will be introduced within the next day or so and draft
regulations to support this stewardship program will be released as well as
quickly as possible once the amendments are in place on the act. There is a high level of interest throughout
the province and the city, and I expect this will be a very successful and high‑profile
program that will ultimately involve not only from a levy base, but into a
market‑based adjustment to the levy so that those products that truly
have some recyclable value will start to be able to benefit from that and have
their levies adjusted accordingly.
I will touch briefly on the Sustainable Development
Innovations Fund. As you are aware,
there is a separate booklet, I believe that is what the member has in her hand
there or it is one very similar, that has been produced and tabled in the
Legislature.
Total expenditures as of March '94 were $3,553,000 that
were approved out of the fund. Major
allocations were in this area: $550,000
for waste minimization; $78,000 for projects that were carried over from the
previous year; $200,000 for the Environmental Youth Corps program; $100,000 for
the City of Winnipeg waste disposal program; $116,000 for projects under the
Manitoba products stewardship program; $80,000 for projects under the Regional
Waste Management Assistance Fund; and $300,000 for the City of Winnipeg
comprehensive recycling program in conjunction with Manitoba stewardship
program; and the following waste management projects: recycling and collection, $157,000;
educational awareness, $421,000; regional waste management, $112,000; regional
recycling networks, $368,000; market development, $394,000.
As members are aware, the fund source is environmental
protection taxes which currently apply to alcohol beverage containers and
disposable diapers.
Environmental Youth Corps has been funded during the past
three years. We believe that it has been
very successful, touching over 19,000 youth between the ages of 6 and 24 who
have participated in the program. Some
200 projects have received approval in excess of $435,000 and fund support has
been provided. I have every reason to
believe the coming year will be equally as successful.
As you will note, there are no ongoing joint federal‑provincial
environmental assessment activities at this time.
With respect to the North Central Transmission Project, the
department issued a licence on February 22, 1994, to Manitoba Hydro for that
project. The licence requires Manitoba
Hydro to establish liaison committees in the project communities, protect
wildlife habitat and forestry resources, control handling of oil and other
petroleum products, and use people and equipment to control weeds once the
project is completed. Chemical use is
prohibited. All the licence requirements
are consistent with the recommendations of the North Central Environmental
Review Panel.
The Conawapa Environmental Review Panel was terminated
after Ontario Hydro cancelled the power contract with Manitoba Hydro. I will bring you up to date later on what we
are doing to help rationalize environmental responsibilities between the
province and Canada and eliminate some of the duplication that was very obvious
during these two processes that I just referred to.
On the other hand, I think the North Central Panel and
Conawapa are an example of where the province has been willing to work co‑operatively
with the federal authorities in the best interests of doing the job right and
taking our environmental protection responsibilities seriously.
We continue to administer the environmental assessment
review and approval process under The Environment Act, The Dangerous Goods
Handling and Transportation Act, and The Public Health Act. The process was established in 1988. It incorporates public input into all final
decision making, but we do need to remind ourselves that it does provide
flexibility on a specific‑site basis.
Efforts are now being made through consultation with customers to
minimize time requirements in dealing with these proposals.
A major concern in many sectors these days relates to land
contaminated by past activities.
Remediation of these properties can be extremely expensive and
determination of who is responsible and therefore who should pay can be very
complex and contentious. Landowners,
lenders, realtors, industrialists, land developers, municipalities and
manufacturers are all critically interested in this problem.
We have been active on two fronts with respect to this
issue: a leadership role nationally by
chairing a national task group on contaminated site liability under the
auspices of CCME. The group is a
multistakeholder with a 10‑member core group and advisory group in excess
of 50 representing some 37 organizations.
The task group has developed principles that will be used by the various
jurisdictions, so development of their legislation is now looking at how to
resource the remediation of orphan sites and shares where there is no
identifiable, viable, responsible party.
We have a multistakeholder advisory committee in Manitoba
that is currently drafting legislation to incorporate the nationally developed
principles into Manitoba legislation.
The work of this group will be tabled in the Legislature this session in
the form of a discussion paper and will be the target of widespread
consultation and discussion.
I believe we have found a way to fairly and openly
apportion liability for the remediation of contaminated sites in this province
that are posing an environmental risk or a health risk within the jurisdiction.
Our livestock waste management regulation has been
introduced and is now effective. The new
regulation under The Environment Act has recently been put into effect. This regulation prescribes requirements for the
use, management and storage of livestock waste and mortalities in agriculture
operations so that livestock operations can be operated in an environmentally
sound manner.
Particularly, hogs represent a very high potential for
major expansion and all the economic benefits that flow from that. This regulation represents sustainable
development in action. Their industry
needs it to have some credibility in its planning for development, and the
public needs it to ensure these operations will not harm the environment. I am sure we will have an opportunity to
discuss those issues further.
* (1530)
I touched on the ozone depleting substances regulation, the
stewardship material regulation. It
should be pointed out that a Rockwood sensitive area regulation has been
implemented to protect against the migration of the ground water contamination
so that area can continue to be confident that that unfortunate incident will
not spread further within the aquifer.
As I indicated, we are moving within The Waste Reduction
and Prevention Act on further developments with the tire program. Onsite sewage disposal system regulation is
an area that does not necessarily attract a lot of public attention, perhaps
only rarely, but in fact is one that is of significant importance in terms of
environmental matters, because it is necessary to update our regulatory
measures and present day standards including the proposed regulation to provide
for revised construction and siting standards for sewage disposal systems, new
requirements for septic fields in areas that have a high percentage of clay
soil, requirements for training and certification of sewage installers and
haulers.
Our goal is to release a discussion document for public
consultation, because this is an area that affects not only environment, a
number of other cross‑jurisdictional responsibilities within government,
municipal authorities, health authorities and certainly will likely be a long
and torturous road to having a new regulation in that area, but one that in the
Red River Valley is particularly important.
While it does not attract a lot of public debate, perhaps because of the
nature of the topic, I know that in some of our regions, probably along the Red
River corridor more than anywhere else, our local officers get more complaints
about private sewage systems and the issues that surround them than most other
items that come up.
The department has spent a significant amount of time
working on a swimming pool and water recreational facilities regulation. A most unfortunate incident that occurred
about year ago in this province where a young lady was entrapped by her hair in
a faulty system has led to a lot of work there that is being co‑ordinated
with other jurisdictions. Frankly, there
have not been appropriate regulations established in this area, and we hope to
be able to bring some clarity to that.
We are working with the federal government on a co‑ordinated
approach to environmental assessment on pulp and paper regulations. We spend a lot of energy and a lot of staff
time working on NAFTA and the North American free trade and the environmental
side agreements that are associated with that.
I want to make specific note of the people within the
department who work in conjunction with other departments within government in
this area. Manitoba was one of the first
jurisdictions that stepped forward using the expertise of our people within
government to put forward positions on the environmental side agreement. Other jurisdictions either were not moving at
that particular juncture or had philosophically taken a position in opposition
to NAFTA, and therefore were not in a position to be at the table or did not
want to be at the table negotiating what could potentially be successful and
appropriate environmental side agreements.
I suppose that points out why we had our nose out of joint
as far as we did after the NACE office did not come to Manitoba because this
jurisdiction had been involved very deeply from Day One in some of the impacts
that go with North American free trade.
A more mundane note, although it certainly has not been
mundane from the start of the work that has been done, Manitoba has an ongoing
and I think quite appropriate state of the environment reporting
mechanism. This year, '94‑95, will
be the next report. We will be preparing
it looking to agriculture as the focus of the report. Besides its importance to our economy,
agriculture is also a close relationship, obviously, with the environment, and
I think we all look forward and welcome the review with that being the focus of
this upcoming report.
Water quality is proceeding as it does every year,
continuing work, it seems never‑ending work in the water management
activities in the Red River basin, but, nevertheless, we finalized the
watershed classification report for the entire Red River basin. This activity actions original reports and
recommendations to the Clean Environment Commission with respect to setting
water quality objectives for the Red and Assiniboine and their tributaries, and
in fact, is one of those other areas where staff, time, resources are expended
but does not always attract a lot of public attention or credit but ultimately
leads to broad changes that have significant impact and benefit to the
environment.
Very quickly, one other area that has been alternately‑‑we
are either very, very smart or very, very lucky, and that is in the area of
zebra mussels. A lot of
interdepartmental co‑operation has gone on in this area, Environment;
Industry, Trade and Tourism; Natural Resources; Northern Affairs; and Rural
Development have all been working together on the zebra mussels initiative.
We have at least one dedicated person within the department
who has been working closely with Natural Resources in this area. It has primarily been based on knowledge,
education and encouragement for the recreation public particularly to be aware
of the issue and do what needs to be done in order to slow down the spread of
these mussels. But we have found them as
close as Thunder Bay, and it seems to me that there is almost an inevitability
that they may end up in this province, but the longer we can delay it, the
longer we can delay some very significant costs that would be associated with
managing them if they are transplanted into this province. The cost to Hydro, the cost to the City of
Winnipeg and to almost all of our water sources, our water management sources
would be extremely high. They will
likely migrate, I suppose, despite our best efforts, but as I said, delay is
money saved in this particular case.
I have to repeat, from our own gratification, if not the
edification of my critics, that the fact that we have some 40 trailerloads of
PCBs out of this province and Manitoba now has got rid of 80 percent of its PCBs
into the Alberta incinerator, is to my way of thinking very good news and
something that should be greeted with some considerable amount of applause,
considering the amount of grief that PCBs can cause if they are in the wrong
place or if they are even stored behind a school and some people take objection
to it.
With those comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I suppose I
would also invite questions before this session is over on the activities of
the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation if there are still some
lingering questions about some of their activities, but certainly they are
involved with the department and doing some of the remediation work under
contract. They tender from time to time
in competition, and they are presently‑‑and the reason I put it in
that context is that they are presently operating the remediation activities at
The Pas in conjunction with an Ontario firm that had a known technology that
they wanted to expand their credibility, if you will, and their capability to sell
that technology into other jurisdictions.
Those are very lengthy comments, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
but I think it indicates that, as my colleagues from time to time remind me, we
are involved in an awful lot of the Natural Resource‑related activities
that go on in government, and again, I want to give credit to the commitment of
staff in helping to keep all these things juggled.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister for those short
comments. Does the critic from the
official opposition party, the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli),
have an opening statement?
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the
chance to participate in the review of the Estimates, and there certainly is a
lot to deal with. I have been in this
position now for going on four years, and I feel like I have certainly learnt a
tremendous amount and developed a greater understanding of what the minister
faces during this time of recession and the changes that are going on internationally
with the economy and the difficult job that we have as a province of trying to
deal with the environmental crisis that we are in.
I am concerned that I never hear the minister use those
words. I never hear the minister talk
about the state of the world and the fact that we are experiencing an
environmental crisis. It is
insidious. It is affecting all sorts of
areas of our economy right here in Manitoba and internationally. It is affecting our health. It is affecting our social institutions, our
health care system‑‑that is the kind of thing I mean by that. It is affecting immigration and the
dispossession of people, the movement of people throughout the world. It is having a great effect on the ability
for us to have equality as it gets more and more difficult for certain regions
to be self‑sustaining, self‑sufficient in their food supply.
* (1540)
The implications of the environmental crisis we are in are
tremendous. Here we have one little
department in Manitoba with a budget of, what is it, $15 million to $17 million
over the last couple of years that is trying to address this in our
province. I guess one of the things that
struck me over the couple of years that I have been in this role is, although
we have had a government that has put quite a bit of money into the round table
on sustainable development and into various materials that have been brought
out to the public, I do not feel that we have really seen a change in
government structure, in government process and in the way that a government
integrates decision making and policy and programs to really change the way
that we are approaching environment development questions.
I have had the opportunity to attend a variety of wonderful
conferences and meetings with people.
There really is a wealth of information out there. There really is a wealth of ideas. There is a whole great opportunity, I think,
to change and to reform and to transform both government intervention through
an Environment department, as well as change in the economy.
I think, as I have developed my own analysis and
understanding of environment development questions, I do not look anymore at
the Environment department in isolation.
I have, I think, erased the boxes as a lot of people start to talk about
where we start to look at the linkages between environment and health and
social justice and the economy and various other areas related to resource and
agriculture and the number of different departments that we have.
One of the things I am concerned about is seeing how this
department is involved in trying to apply the concepts of a more sustainable
economy and more sustainable culture. I
think a lot of it has to do with the culture that we live in and the values
that we have.
I think we can no longer look simply at the economy in the
way that we have in terms of a very linear kind of development, and I would
like to give the minister a chance, after we are finished our opening comments,
to talk a little bit about his role in defining this government's approach to
sustainable development in the face of the globalization of trade and the
automation that we are seeing in the economy.
These are some of the larger issues. I find that is continually what we have to do
is go between what is happening internationally and what we are facing here
provincially.
One of the other things that I try to focus on is the tools
that we can develop as a provincial government to create a more environmentally
sustainable economy. So I want to focus
on that a little bit today too and to try and get some understanding from the
minister of the tools that he thinks that his government and his department
have developed. What do we have going
for us so that we can see some real change?
Some of the things that I think are really valuable are
environmental impact assessment. I see
that as a great tool to integrating environment development, health, and
justice. This government's record on
environmental impact assessment, I would say, is pretty horrible.
We are starting the hearings right now on Louisiana‑Pacific,
and they have used their authority to, I think, create a process that is not in
keeping with the principles that they say that they believe in in terms of
sustainable development. It is another
example of how they have either manipulated or not had the kind of
environmental process that is really going to lead to change.
I think there are a number of actions that this government
has taken, whether it is in legislation like Bill 49 and Bill 41 and some of
the other legislation that they brought in, Bill 38, changing The Wildlife Act,
that they have gone backwards.
We have in a number of areas gone backwards under this
government. I will temper that with
saying that maybe there are some initiatives that this government has taken
that have been somewhat positive, but I would say that they have been in the
more narrow sense. They have done some
decent things with ozone depleting substances, yet I hear also concerns about
that.
They have done some reasonable things in the area that the
minister likes to talk about, which is the recycling and tires. Yet, though, we still, I think, have not
addressed some fundamental problems in terms of market development in some of
those areas.
I am also very concerned about the staffing in the
department. I am concerned about the
burden on the staff. I am concerned
about the burden‑‑[interjection] The minister says, what about the
burden on him? I wonder sometimes.
I know that I dealt with this a lot in the last Estimates
of trying to get a better picture of the people who advise the minister and the
place where he takes his advice. I can
appreciate that it is no easy job to be a Minister of Environment in this
time. But that brings me to the other
concern that I have and the perspective that I have that a lot of advice out
there is available to the minister, and I think it will take some courage to
listen to that advice.
That is why I was so concerned and continue to be concerned
about the minister's actions in terms of the Manitoba Environment Council. I do not separate change in environment and
development areas with change in some of the political structures that we have. We have to create procedures and processes
that are going to give people a voice and are going to involve as many people
in environment development matters as possible.
That is why I am so concerned that the minister is going backwards in
trying to silence the number of volunteers through the Manitoba Environment
Council.
He made comments the other day in the House that it was not
functioning well, that people were not coming out to meetings anymore. I would suggest that is because the number of
scientists and activists in that council felt that they were not being listened
to, that they were being ignored, and that is the reason that they are not as
eager to participate. They, I think, are
finding different avenues other than coming directly to the minister and
bending his ear.
It seems like the government has turned a deaf ear to a lot
of the scientific expertise that has come from different universities or
different community groups. I find that
really a concern because, like I was saying, I think that we are only going to
see real change when we also erase the boxes and start to change our political
structures which I think are maintaining the status quo and resisting change
towards true economic reform that is going to allow a more environmentally
sensitive economy and decision making.
So with those comments, I will stop and pass off to my
Liberal critic, colleague, and then look forward to getting into some questions
and discussion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those
remarks. Does the critic for the second
opposition party, the honourable member for Osborne, have an opening statement?
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a brief
statement.
I want to begin by saying that I have a degree of
familiarity with this department having had the opportunity to work with it and
having been a client of some of its services over a number of years. I would like to support the minister's
statement that there is, in fact, a high level of technical competence in the
department. I think what I would like to
focus on, though, as I go through this first Estimates process is how can this
technical competence be supported so it can be retained.
I remain concerned that the decreasing budget for this department,
in a time when there is increasing demand being placed on it, is entirely
inappropriate. I am going to be looking
for evidence that there has been some thought given to the enforcement
capability for some of these new regulations which are being brought on
stream. Of course, in his opening
remarks the minister spoke of innovative solutions to the problems of
enforcement and, in fact, I think there are some things which could be done,
but I will be seeking some more definition on what the minister meant by
innovative solutions.
* (1550)
I think the introduction of acts and regulation into the
process creates a need for bringing the content of those and the expectations
they place on the regulated community to the attention of the people who are
impacted by them. You used The Ozone
Depleting Substances Act and regs as illustrative of a way in which the
industry can be co‑opted into performing many of the educative
activities. I think we, though, still
need to think clearly of what is involved in the price of partnership. Is there still, at the end of the day, a
responsibility in the department for ensuring that that activity is done
correctly and the things that were the subject of the educative activity are,
in fact, coming to be in the affected businesses and industry?
I also want to talk about, you know, segueing from your
comments around interprovincial and interdepartmental co‑operation, I
sense an increasing need to ensure good communication between various
government departments, particularly Agriculture and Natural Resources, as many
of the activities which are going on, encouraged by these other departments,
have an impact back on the Department of Environment. If we are going to be true to the mission
statement of the department and preserve the integrity of Manitoba's
environment for future generations, then it is going to be necessary that the
other departments, in fact, be as committed to this vision as is the Department
of Environment.
I am interested in hearing initiatives around shared
facilities and ways in which Canada and Manitoba can co‑operate. This is one area which, I believe, is in
transition right now. We are going to
see perhaps some major shifts in the ways in which environmental matters are
dealt with. Constitutionally, it is an
area which does involve both jurisdictions, and so I will commend the
department for any initiatives it puts in place to look at ways of maximizing
the co‑operation and improving the sharing between Canada and Manitoba.
That being said, I also am interested in exploring in the
Estimates process the whole question of your ideas around delegation and
empowerment; and, looking at the continuous improvement initiatives, the one
area that I would like to spend some time on when it becomes appropriate is the
area of the rationalization and integration of the lab services.
I think this is going to have a profound impact on many
people who have come to expect certain things from the labs as they were
previously established, and I would like to understand better than I do now how
the lab amalgamation is going to impact on matters relating to environmental
protection, just as a way of concern.
We have increasing calls around people who are decrying the
cost of getting laboratory analysis results and the delays that have gone on,
and there are those who suspect that it is a diabolical plot, that the cost
going up simply precludes you from being able to determine whether your water
is polluted or whatever, and that it is one way in which the public is
precluded from getting the base line of information that they would need to
determine if there is a problem. So I
will be exploring some of those areas with you in that area.
With respect to the beverage‑container packaging,
again we await eagerly the detail of your regulatory initiative, and it may, in
fact, be the solution to a long‑standing problem.
The other area that I was pleased to hear you give us the
entry into is with respect to developments at the Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation. In this area I
am concerned that the development of the new corp is likely to cause a change
in the mission statement of the corporation, and that, in fact, there may be
things which were appropriately in the purview of the Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation, which will either be lost but which must, of necessity,
go back to the department.
I will be looking for ways in which you intend to resource
the department if they are going to reassume some of that mandated
information. So I think with those
remarks that gives you some of the things I am interested in pursuing in this
Estimates process.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the member for those remarks. Under Manitoba practice, debate of the
Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates
of the department. Accordingly, we shall
defer consideration of this item and now proceed with the consideration of the
next line.
At this time we invite the minister's staff to join us at
the table, and we ask the minister to introduce his staff that is present,
please.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are being joined
by Deputy Minister Norm Brandson, Assistant Deputy Ministers Carl Orcutt and
Serge Scrafield and the man responsible for almost everything, in financial
matters in particular, Wolf Boehm at the end of the table here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We will now move on to line 1. Administration
and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $326,100.
Ms. Cerilli: Maybe I can just clarify what page you are
working from in the Estimates book.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We are on page 52 in the Estimates book and
22‑23 in the book that you are dealing with.
Ms. Cerilli: This is the area that deals with advice to
the minister on matters to the department and "provides overall policy
direction for departmental programs" and "coordinates departmental
communication activities and initiatives."
I would like to start off by asking the minister to describe the overall
policy direction for the department.
Mr. Cummings: Well, that can certainly open me up for a
great deal of discussion. Let me begin
by saying obviously the first responsibilities that we have are, as I stated,
where we are responsible for the management of environmental issues. That carries the full range from working
interdepartmentally to making sure that we are communicating and acting where
environmental responsibility is involved.
It also includes, obviously, regulation and enforcement
across the province, and I might add, of course, I am saying this in no
particular order, if the member is suggesting that perhaps I am prioritizing
the responsibilities. But the fact is, I
see the responsibility of the department and my responsibility as multifaceted,
and the reason that I mention interdepartmental and interjurisdictional
responsibilities is that it is my view that environmental enforcement and
environmental awareness, enhancement of the environment and carrying out
projects that have an environmental impact, both pro and con, require a very
broad base of co‑operation across the community, the same as it requires
a broad base of co‑operation within government.
* (1600)
In the very broadest sense, that is how I see the
responsibilities breaking down within the department. This department has taken a significant
amount of responsibility and interjurisdictional responsibility. I suppose ranging from the fact that I was in
Municipal Affairs for a year before I came over to Environment through to the
fact that I and other members of the department from senior members on through
to working level responsibilities have taken a significant amount of
responsibility in provincial and national areas of co‑operation, exchange
of information and leadership and even to the extent of international‑‑particularly
across the border north‑south with North Dakota, Minneapolis, and the
Midwestern region.
Given the interest of our Premier (Mr. Filmon) and other
leaders in those areas, we have probably been seen to be on the road quite a
bit to start off with, but, secondly, that is simply an extension of
responsibility that flows right through the department, but responsibilities
that particularly involve a high degree of working with municipal authorities
and industry.
We certainly have had significant involvement with the
Department of Industry, Department of Natural Resources. They take the lead in a number of those
areas, and we work with them. So it is a
very co‑operative and multidimensional approach that we take towards
environmental protection and enhancement.
Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that answer, and I
will pick up on a couple of the things that he has said.
First of all, in the area of policy regarding communication
with the public or other interested bodies, can the minister describe any
initiatives they have developed to communicate more effectively with the public
related to environment issues?
Granted, I may get more of the complaints, but I often get
complaints from the public when they cannot get access to information, when
they are not given clear indication of how the process functions, what they are
entitled to get, particularly in the area of getting data from tests that have
been done on water or soil. I get
complaints about people not being clear of the process that they are supposed
to go through. Often people feel like
they are being given the runaround when they are trying to take it upon
themselves to protect the environment in their community.
Other jurisdictions I am aware of do more work in this
area. They put out information that
describes to people how they can‑‑and they distribute that
information on how they can use environmental impact assessment, for example,
and they give updates on environmental impact assessments in different regions
of that government's jurisdiction. I am
wondering why we do not do any of that kind of thing.
It just seems that there could be a lot more that could be
done in giving the public information that would assist them in protecting the environment
and to really be partners with the department because so much of our
legislation is complaint driven, is driven by the request and insistence of the
public of having the government respond.
So I would ask the minister to clarify the policy with respect to
communication with the public.
Mr. Cummings: There is a very wide range of areas in which
any department can communicate with the public.
I think one of the more significant changes was made in this department,
sort of coincidence, about the time I came over to the Department of
Environment; it sort of unfolded over the two years following. I received the initial report and followed up
on it. That was the regionalization and
the decentralization of the department.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The first thing you have got to get away from is having
everybody think they have got to go to Winnipeg, Brandon or Thompson in order
to get any kind of environmental licensing.
I suppose it would be fair criticism to say that we have not devolved to
the regions all of the licensing responsibilities that they might eventually
have, but certainly that is the direction in which we have been moving as the
expertise becomes available there.
I would have to say clearly as well that this department
had a significant communications quotient inasmuch as the previous
administration had very large numbers of communicators, some of whom were
attached to departments and did a whole lot of other things, which were a lot
more than just departmental communication.
I think that we have attempted to focus our communication on
departmental responsibilities, not in a straight line, but in a very broad
sense. We spend a lot of time working
with municipalities. I personally spend
a lot of time with the‑‑and they are obviously one of the regulated
and one of the more influential lines of communication that we have to have out
there. We spend a lot of time within the
department on consultation.
Any amendments to regulations or acts are required to go
out for consultation. Occasionally, we
have to short‑circuit that process a little bit just to get on with the
job more than to short‑circuit the opportunity for the public to have
input and comment. An example would be
the livestock waste management regulations, the stubble burning
regulations. In both cases, events
overtook what would have been a rather leisurely regulatory review as we
proceeded to bring those aspects under regulation.
The stubble burning regulation was a very necessary and
needed response. It needed to be out
there for the spring as it needed to bring on‑board a far broader sense
of stakeholders than what would normally have been the case. Rather than just spend the time communicating
and getting feedback, we felt that we had to bring the situation under control
because the population of Winnipeg, for example, was not going to accept, nor
should they have been exposed to, another situation that caused us to evoke
emergency response in the fall of '92.
So that was an example of where some that communication that might have
otherwise occurred was shortened.
I am sure the member will want to roll the Manitoba
Environmental Council into this discussion, whether or not they were and
continue to be a source of information to the minister. Certainly they, in my mind, always were. The fact is that they have been spending a
lot of their time and energy, as members would know, getting into very detailed
analysis of certain situations, and I am fundamentally opposed to government
having expertise, hiring expertise and then also paying for additional self‑generated
projects to be undertaken, not that I have any personal animosity or dislike of
the work the people are undertaking, it is simply a matter of focusing
information and capabilities so that the information can flow a little bit more
quickly into the area for decision making.
In terms of communication with the public and people
inquiring about information, I know that there are people who from time to time
have expressed frustration about not getting information from the
department. I have to say unreservedly
that my experience is that this department responds very openly to requests for
information, whether it is media‑requests or whether it is requests from
private individuals.
I always point to what I think was a classic case where one
reporter from the Free Press continuously being fed information that the
department was harbouring information that they were not sharing with the
public, and in co‑operation with myself, the departmental people finally
said to this particular reporter, there is the drawer with all the files in
it. You cannot go into other drawers in
this filing system but look for as long as you want, and if there is something
in there you think we are hiding, for goodness sake, dig it out because we do
not know where it is. That is an example
of where we have been very, very open about information that is available.
There have been other situations, I suppose, where you
could argue that enough information may not be available. There might be arguments for more timely
turnaround on information that was requested on tests and other things of that
nature, but the frustration that the member refers to more than likely does
relate to the evolution of the act. The
act does not‑‑I always have to stop and check process and what
happens in what step of the process, and I think that frustration, however, is
too full. There is frustration on one
side from those who are critical of certain activities and who want more
information to continue to be critical of activities, and on the other side,
there are those who are proponents of various projects who express extreme
frustration at the voluminous amounts of information that they are required to
present for environmental evaluation, and we continue to press on that
side. It is a balance. The information has to be done in advance of
decision making.
* (1610)
On the other hand, one of the things that I have
consistently expressed frustration with is the open‑endedness of the
federal system. We have tried to make
our system a little bit more predictable in terms of start, stop and finish,
and that includes keeping one eye on the federal system in a lot of cases when
you are into some complicated EIAs where there is federal involvement.
I could probably go on at nauseam on this area, but you
might have more specific questions you would like to ask.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do want to try
and be specific, and we are dealing with policy here, specifically right now
communications policy. I am hoping the
department's role in this area is not just issuing news releases. That is not what I am referring to, even
though I am sure that this is the area in the department that has that
responsibility for working with‑‑the minister can clarify that if
he likes, but what I am interested in is picking up on a couple of the points
that the minister made.
In terms of consultation, I see a couple of things
happening where we are moving to a tendency for more open houses, and that is
positive in the sense that industry and government are going to be giving
information to the public, but the problem with that is, it does not give the
public a forum really to make their concerns known in a way that is going to
require the government to respond, I would say.
The other thing I am concerned about is‑‑and
again, most of this is from experience dealing with issues close to home in my
constituency, Palliser, General Scrap, Domtar, hazardous waste site, those
kinds of things. One of the things we
are dealing with now is, the minister and the department have chosen to use a
mediator in terms of General Scrap, and it seems like there is a lot of
confusion as to the process and the policy in this area. So that is something I would like to have the
minister clarify.
Again, it seems to be occurring in a way that is trying to
disempower the community, and so often, it seems, this is what seems to happen
with the way that the department and the minister's office handle these issues,
when, on the other hand, what the minister claims is that they are interested
in empowerment.
So I am very concerned that we are going to have a
clarification of what the communities' rights are in terms of access to
information. What can they expect in
terms of getting data so that they can make their views known so that they can
be participants in decision making and ensure that their concerns are going to
be heard and listened to?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am, first of
all, taken aback but certainly most adamant that the process that we are
involving more and more when we talk about mediation approach to issues is
meant to empower, not disempower, the community.
It depends, I suppose, with what agenda someone comes to
the table. If the agenda they come to
the table with is to create mischief, then they will be disempowered because
they cannot get away with misrepresenting the facts, they cannot get away with
innuendo, they cannot get away with putting false information on the record
because they are sitting across the table from the proponent who can respond
immediately with what the facts are. The
Department of Environment, the mediator and whoever else is there can either
require expertise to provide some balance to those comments, to see who is
really being factual, or be involved more directly with the community in
establishing what it is that they want in their community.
I am not sure if we want to discuss specifically some of
the areas of concern that you raise, but I could sort of work backwards on your
list, Domtar being an example of where it is a long‑standing historical
problem, one which the community was quite concerned about, one which I, as a
matter of fact, now think the department should take some pride in the way in
which it has been proceeding. You can be
critical of the pace at which it is proceeding, but when you consider that the
previous administrations have‑‑and I will watch my language here‑‑done
nothing basically‑‑I could use much more colorful language, but I
will not bother at this juncture‑‑to now, where there is a
committee of the community that is being kept abreast of what it is that Domtar
is doing.
I understand that there is now a construction permit and,
in fact, some construction occurring on site to prepare the treating of the
soil. As for that project, when one
could come to the table with a good deal of mischief in mind, raising all sorts
of innuendo and concerns about not getting on with the project‑‑and
I make no apology for the fact that it makes my life a lot easier if the
community does know, so I have no vested interest in hiding information from
the community in terms of process and what they can expect next.
General Scrap: There
is an issue where, by bringing in a mediator, we tried to empower the
community. For those who were standing
out there saying that they wanted to have greater input into the licensing
process, I think General Scrap might rightfully complain that they have not had
a very easy path on this. We have tried
to empower the community more and more with the involvement in this project,
and, frankly, we have not always had people on that side of the table that have
been playing with a full deck of cards either.
I do not know why, but there has been great potential for mischief on
both sides of that issue.
If an attempt to get all of the information out on the
table is anything other than being forthright and empowering the community,
then I would certainly want to know about it.
Palliser: The issues
there are well known, if the member wants to discuss them further.
I would invite the member to be very careful of what she
says. For example, a situation has
arisen around General Scrap because one of her colleagues wrote some letters to
the editor of, I believe it is, the Lance local paper that were absolutely
inflammatory and, certainly it seemed to me, were less than helpful in trying
to get on with deciding how that project could be licensed, if it was going to
be licensed at all. Those who were
demanding that it go to a CEC hearing knew darn well that if it went to the CEC
with a lack of information that was at the table at that point, they would be
laughed out of the room.
It was only in fairness to both the proponent and the
community that we tried to have more of an involvement at the community level
and to determine what information needed to be brought to the table, because
the second part of the discussion very much revolves around, if you can license
something that people in the community absolutely, adamantly do not want there,
they are going to use the Clean Environment Commission as their last lever to
try and stop it. They obviously have
lost the planning battle in many cases with their municipal authorities, and
very often the municipal authorities should be bearing a lot more of the
responsibility around some of the issues that go to the Clean Environment
Commission than the people in the Clean Environment Commission are. They are very often significant environment
matters, but the real concern is being expressed around planning issues.
Certainly, General Scrap falls at least partially into that
area, where people just do not want them expanding in that area, frankly. If they were 20 miles out in the country,
they would probably be taking a different view to the type of plant that they
are trying to put in there.
I will leave my comments here.
Ms. Cerilli: I will go back to this just briefly,
directly, if the minister could clarify what the policy and process are on
utilizing a mediator in dispute resolution on a development for environment
licence in Manitoba, everything from how development becomes a candidate for
mediation up until we have a decision.
* (1620)
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Mr. Cummings: I can tell you it is pretty much of a
situation‑by‑situation problem.
I got burned a couple of times early on trying to be a proponent of
mediation. An example was, in fact, a
lagoon in the Lundar area, if I am not mistaken, where the municipality had a
significant disagreement between members of council and residents, at one end
of the municipality to the other. I
cannot remember what the name of the municipality was, and it does not matter
at this point, but the fact is the municipality was within its decision‑making
rights. Environmental issues were
considered to be part of the issue, but in fact they had been answered. So it really came down to a planning issue
about whether or not there was going to be a lagoon in a specific part of the
municipality or not.
If you are going to have mediation, you need to have both
sides willing to go to the table, and that was an example of where one of the
sides simply said, no, we are not coming back to the table. Those who are responsible decision‑makers
must make a decision. In fact, despite
the sensitivity of some of the issues that we were discussing a moment ago, at
least the proponents in both cases were willing to come to the table.
In the area of Palliser Furniture, I recall reports that I
received, some of them verbal, some of them written, that Mr. Palliser, when he
was made aware of how gravely some of the people in the community viewed
potential or possible concerns around emissions from his plant, was very
personally troubled by it and undertook to do everything he could to deal with
it. Whether it has been dealt with to
the satisfaction of everyone in the community or not, I do not know, but I can
tell you it was certainly an example of where, from an environmental point of
view, we believe that the concerns have been largely addressed, and we believe
that the mediation process served both sides well because the company in this
case clearly stated it was prepared to accept its responsibilities.
Choosing the mediation route frankly is a preferred route,
the same as it is preferable to have community involvement for siting. I think I learned my lesson when we finally
sited the Hazardous Waste Corporation.
When you have a willing community it makes life so much easier in the
end. You do not have to agree with the
location. [interjection] One of my critics might well disagree with where we
ultimately‑‑or both of you might well disagree with where we
eventually put it, but the fact is, when you have an agreeable community, the
end result is that you have less of a hostile atmosphere in terms of a company
or a proponent having an opportunity to develop.
The same as enforcement, I do not think that first choice
always has to be to seek a major fine in terms of environmental enforcement,
that you can get an awful lot of co‑operation and movement for the
benefit of the environment without having to spend your time acting as
policemen hiding behind trees and under trucks to see what is going on. While both may have to occur at some point, I
can tell you that the record of the environmental condition of this province in
many ways speaks for itself in that respect.
That does not mean that I say that to flatter myself any more than it is
a reflection of the reality of this province.
We are not heavily, heavily industrialized. We have a mixed agricultural economy
largely. We have mixed forestry and
mining industries out there that, by and large, any serious environmental scars
that have been created can be handled, the ones that are there
historically. We are now very much in
the position to protect the environment from the activities that are being
contemplated right from the amendments that were made in The Mines Act through
to the kind of things that we are doing interdepartmentally when we are
licensing projects.
Ms. Cerilli: So to clarify, then, the minister is saying
that there is no specific policy on mediation process and format for the
government; there is issue‑by‑issue consideration. I am concerned about that. I think this is an area that there is a huge
potential for development. There are a
number of professional mediators that are out there that can deal with power
imbalances so that both sides can come to the table.
I think that this is an area that needs to be dealt with
for smaller localized issues all the way up to the larger issues like we are
dealing with Louisiana‑Pacific, or Abitibi‑Price in Pine Falls, and
some of these larger issues. There are
some concerns though with mediation in, like the minister says, having equal
access to information and having information come out during that process and
have it be public. So I think that it is
unfortunate that the government has not done more in this area to develop a
specific policy in conjunction with the community where, as I said, there is a
lot of expertise by organizations and professionals in the mediation field.
I want to just ask one more question in this area of
policy, and it flows from one of the things that the minister commented on in
terms of regulation and enforcement. I
am concerned about the difficulties that this department must be having, and we
know it is having, in trying to enforce the ever‑increasing number of
regulations and laws that it is responsible for in the face of declining staff
and declining financial resources. The
minister has said that this is a policy direction that the government is
focusing on, yet it seems to be incongruent with the results that we see in the
annual report and the ongoing issues that do come to light in terms of public
awareness where there are difficulties with enforcement.
I have with me information that the minister sent when I
asked questions about this in the last Estimates when there were some pronouncements
made that there was some new enforcement policy. I would make it just sort of the general
question: Initially, what results can
the minister show that indicate that there is an increase in enforcement in the
province of Manitoba in environmental regulations? How can we get some confidence that there is
a direction towards enforcement when, like I said, the charts that are provided
in the annual report and the departmental information show that there is not an
increase in enforcement? When we look at
the number of things that are going on in the province, we can see there is a
problem in this area, that the department staff are probably overworked and are
not keeping up.
We know there are a lot of areas where there is not a
consistent schedule of inspections.
There are problems, I would say, where industry is told when there is
going to be an inspection, and then we just have the ongoing problem of so many
areas that are not under one of these programs at all where there is no program
for ongoing inspection and enforcement.
I would ask the minister to respond.
Mr. Cummings: I would be interested in any specifics the
member could provide where we would tell industry we were coming around to
inspect. I think this department uses
the same as any other enforcement agency.
By and large, spot checks are pretty effective. On the other hand, if you are looking to
review a plant, you might want one of the responsible people to be there so you
could at least get into the plant at the time of inspection. I am not sure what the member is referring to
in that respect.
We may have discussed at our last session on Environment
Estimates the fact that the department did develop an enforcement policy where
we brought in enforcement personnel, we brought in the public at large and
members of the environmental community and discussed what was appropriate
enforcement action, given a certain level of risk associated with certain types
of violations. For example, an
underground gasoline leak is a lot more serious than possibly not having the
right placard on a truckload of farm chemical, I suppose, and yet both can be
extremely troublesome if there is in fact an accident. One is an accident versus a safety procedure
that has been violated; therefore, the two do not necessarily fall in the same
plane.
There is a significant fine from the book for not
placarding correctly, but charges under The Environment Act which could flow
from having a gasoline spill and not reporting it and allowing it to go on for
a period of time or even modifying records is obviously an awful lot more
serious violation.
* (1630)
I read into the record earlier the numbers, and I could
read these numbers off and say they are the demonstration of the level of
distributions of fines and tickets that are appropriate, but I am not sure by
what handle myself or the members would judge whether 143 charges laid under
The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Act with 113 convictions,
whether that is appropriate, until you look at the magnitude of materials that
is moving compared to last year and the year before and the number of charges
that were laid.
Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation was in fact the
area that we declared the last two sections of the act last year and could
commit additional resources to management on this side. At the same time, stubble burning which was
pretty serious in the fall of '92 and can still be a serious problem for a
heavily populated part of the province here in the city, I think we had some 52
charges, a number of convictions, but still a number pending and
outstanding. By comparison to having
none a year ago, that is a significant increase. Those were also helped by RCMP‑‑environment
officers and other officials assisted in the laying of those charges.
As the members are aware‑‑and this is not a
criticism of the court system so much as it is a recognition that they are
having a little trouble getting used to what is the appropriate action under
that section. There was a wide variation
from $1, I guess where they pled guilty and sent in their cheque, to simply an
acknowledgement of the full responsibility and paying of the full fine. So that is an example where there has been
quite an evolution of fines and penalties related to charges.
An example of one that I think has had a significant impact
in terms of numbers that it shows in terms of convictions and charges is The
Ozone Depleting Substances Act. You
obviously cannot have an environment officer behind every tractor or car or truck
that is being serviced out there, or refrigerator or roof‑top industrial
unit. There were six charges laid, but
there was only one conviction. The rest
were stayed. On the other hand, that one
conviction I believe ended up with a fine in excess of $2,000. I know every refrigeration official that I
talk to is well aware of that one poor operator‑‑I should not say
poor operator, that one flagrant abuse where he got caught, and they are not
about to expose themselves to those types of fines, because that was just for
starters. It can go 10 times higher than
that.
I do not know on what basis the member says enforcement
policy could be tightened up. I believe
that a number of other situations‑‑the extension of the livestock
waste management regulations. There is
an example where there is significant potential for charges to be laid, but
there is an even greater potential for education and promotion, that means if
it is working right there will not be that many charges if they get to the
larger operators particularly.
I leave myself open to further questions in that area.
Ms. Cerilli: I will just make a comment, and I am going to
pass on the last little bit of time that we have today to my colleague from
Osborne.
I would just say to the minister to take a look at the
annual report. I do not know the numbers
that he is quoting. I am going to work
from the last report that I have which is for '93. The charts there show that the fines are
$8,773. It lists 566 warnings only, 37
common offence notices, five information notices and direct environment officer
orders 34. I would say, again compared
to other provinces in this country, that is not doing too good. We know there is a lot more work that is
going on in this province where there are hazards than that shows.
But I just want to get back to the issue that we are
dealing with right now, which is policy.
I am going to talk more about the enforcement statistics and dealing
with enforcement on specific areas later on in the Estimates. What I am trying to do right now is to get
the minister to clarify the policy, how the department is given direction for
how to proceed with the large number of regulations they are required to
enforce, given the number of staff and, like the minister said, they cannot
have someone monitoring each and every outfit that has effluent going into a
river or has emissions going into the air.
I want to get some clarification from the minister in terms of the focus
that they are taking and any new process that has been brought in that is going
to encourage better enforcement. I will
leave it there and pass over to my critic from Osborne, because I think she is
going to pick up in the same area.
Mr. Cummings: I will not answer your question fully, but I
just want to interject. The numbers that
you have pointed out about 8,000‑and‑some‑odd dollars being
levied in fines in that one particular year, the numbers that I now am working
from for '93‑94 show an excess of $43,600, just about $43,700. So that is a factor of five that it has gone
up year over year. So that is still not
big dollars, but if you base your sole judgment on whether or not we are
enforcing, by the numbers, you could say that we are enforcing five times better
than we used to, and I am not sure that that is accurate either, but certainly
the number of fines dollars collected has gone up.
Ms. McCormick: I am just going to enter into this fray and
then say that it was my intention to talk more on the Operations line about
enforcement.
* (1640)
I think one of the things that continues to confuse me is
why we talk only about enforcement as being fines, as being the end line
outcome of enforcement, why we are not focusing more on inspections to ensure
compliance to determine the capability of the enforced to comply. That is where I am interested in particularly
referencing it back to The Ozone Depleting Substances Act as to what was the
policy with respect to supporting the industry‑based initiatives to
ensure that it was taking, it was in fact finding root in these regulated
workplaces and was netting out some of the activities which were intended by
the regulation.
Mr. Cummings: I think there is a fair degree of agreement
between myself and the member in the direction that she is trying to lead
me. To begin with, ozone depleting
substances being an example, there were 5,000 men and women trained in the
handling of ozone depleting substances in that first year. They were not trained by the Department of
Environment, although we had a member, a person from Manitoba Hydro seconded to
the department who, in turn, was working with the HRAI‑‑do not ask
me to explain the acronym‑‑heating and refrigeration and air
conditioning industry representatives.
They ran the program.
We have since added to the list of people who are capable
of licensing those who would handle ozone depleting substances. The Manitoba Trucking Association is
qualified now to provide a training course.
Red River, Assiniboine and, I presume, probably Keewatin, all license
through the normal course of their training programs people in the area of
ozone depleting substances.
So that is an area where a proactive approach is
working. It is not translating itself
into a high number of fines or even inspections in the early stages, I would
suggest, but are you not better off to have 5,000 technicians out there who
know what they are supposed to do when they are dealing with refrigerant than
you are to have five‑‑if you can afford them‑‑specific
enforcement officers, because all of our officers are capable of
enforcement. That is the approach that I
prefer.
Ms. McCormick: Indeed, I do see the reason to that. However, I do not see the two activities as
mutually exclusive. I think one of the
critical parts that appears to be missing, that seems to be missing, is the
organizational framework within which that technician operates, and that is
where I think there is a gap. I do worry
that those 5,000 trained technicians have not necessarily generated into‑‑not
an equivalent number, obviously, because there are many people from the same
enterprises who would go to these things‑‑but to as high a level as
one would expect of complying workplaces.
I think what I am making the argument for here is for some kind of audit
activity, some kind of inspection to determine capability of organizations to
comply, not individuals.
Mr. Cummings: My first reaction is that there is also a
paper audit which leads to better definition of what is happening to the
material after it is sold, but in fact there were a number of other specific
audits that were undertaken that eventually led to‑‑while there
were only six charges, that does not mean there were only six audits that were
done. I would also have to say that in
terms of practicality, I cannot necessarily do any more than mutually share the
responsibility for how this was evolved, because there was a lot of industry
involvement.
There were two forces at work, however. There was the one side of the industry that
wanted this cramped down real tight because they knew that it would force half
the people in the industry out of business so the rest of them would be able to
pick it up. There was the other half who
were the backyarder's who did not want any regulation and wanted to continue to
buy a product.
So our regulation and our enforcement is probably more to
the former than the latter, but not as far as the regulatory proponents would
have liked to have pushed it, for this reason, because the fact is there were a
lot of people who saw ozone depleting substances regulation coming and they
stockpiled. They also very quickly found
out that they could pirate the stuff in from the States and from other
jurisdictions. So we needed to get them
educated as to how to best handle it, even though we know there were some of
them out there who had stockpiled in advance of regulations coming in place.
The bottom line in all this is that the only real effective
control on this that will bring it down to the level of restriction that
probably we would all be happy with is when it is phased out. However, that is why we also proposed a
recycling component to our regulations.
That encourages those who would be tempted to cut the line and let it go
to save it because it has some value and to save it because it will have some
future value. They are going to end up
starting to replace their equipment if they do not have availability of
recycled CF‑12, for example.
So it is a balancing act.
I certainly invite people to be critical, but compared to other
jurisdictions across the country, I think we have done quite well. The small volumes that escape from some of
the small compressors, while in total add up to a lot of pounds, the real
significant flagrant violations are the large industrial systems that were bled
or that were operating on the basis that they had to be recharged once a week
because it was too expensive to replace them.
It was cheaper to buy a replacement refrigerant.
So I guess I have encouraged the department to operate a little
bit on the basis that if you have got both sides pushing you, you have probably
struck a reasonably good balance in terms of enforcement.
Ms. McCormick: I guess this comes out of years and years of
answering federal government surveys trying to come up with mass balance and
realizing how much of this stuff really is unaccountable. I do not have a high level of confidence that
the regulation as it is in place now is really turning that around, but we can
come back to that perhaps later on when we speak specifically on the operation
side.
I just wanted to pick up on the two other areas that my
colleague from Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) introduced with respect to policy and
procedure review. One is around the
whole issue of reconciliation between Manitoba's image nationally and
internationally. A concern that I
continue to have is that our own citizenry does not hold Manitoba in as high
regard as we appear to be being held outside of the jurisdiction.
An Honourable Member: That is your own opinion. A prophet is never recognized at home, you
know.
Ms. McCormick: Anyway, is it f‑i‑t or p‑h‑e‑t
we are talking about with respect to "prophet"? I guess this is the very kind of thing I am
getting to, is somehow we continue to have a problem in this province with your
efforts to have environmental matters taken seriously and others' efforts to
make it appear that this is some kind of sort of fringe element concern.
I think that I just want to determine the level of co‑operation
department‑to‑department to address some of these issues. You know, the public is suspicious. The public is identifying conflict‑of‑interest
situations where there is a genuine fear that the Department of Environment's
good intentions are being subverted at every corner by other activities.
The other thing is the whole nature of enforcement being
complaint driven, that you have to actually have polluted or have degraded a
resource in order to get some kind of action.
I just want to hear from you what kinds of activities or initiatives go
on in the setting of your own departmental policies and procedures which
require the co‑operation of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) or
from Natural Resources. How do you
reconcile some of these challenges?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you are putting me in
a very interesting situation looking down the barrel at the Minister of
Agriculture.
Frankly, it is a situation that probably every Environment
minister in the country faces, but one which I had my nose rubbed in right at the
start, and that is, there are two approaches to environmental enhancement and
protection. One is that the Department
of Environment becomes a super numero uno department and controls and orders
everything that happens in all natural resource related activities, or it
becomes the model that we are following, which is that it is regulatory, that
it is promotional. But it is also
promotional in conjunction with other departments within government because one
department alone cannot achieve the goals that need to be achieved.
* (1650)
If there is one example that I point to with some
considerable pride, if you had asked me even three years ago, would I be the
Minister of Environment who would regulate stubble burning and regulate
livestock waste disposal, I would have seriously thought that you had tripped
on the way up the stairs in the morning because there is no way that I
envisaged how rapidly things have evolved in those two areas?
The stubble burning was a problem that was always
acknowledged, but for the Department of Environment, of course, there were only
short periods when the air quality was seriously damaged by the stubble burning
activity. The Department of Agriculture,
through educational processes, was working on reducing the amount of stubble
burning that was going on; but, as so often happens, a very serious situation
arose from a blanketing of the urban area under conditions that probably are
unlikely to occur again for some time.
Agriculture, the industry, the department said the time has come.
The same thing has occurred in the livestock waste
management area. We know and we have a
number of interdepartmental working groups at the level of the bureaucracy but
also ministerial committees, where Rural Development, Agriculture, Environment,
Natural Resources have reason to come together on a number of issues, not the
least of which is we meet as a Sustainable Development Committee of Cabinet to
discuss and review issues that have interlocking relationships with the
environment. It has become a situation
where departments‑‑Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural
Development are doing a considerable amount of environmental promotion out
there.
It makes our life a lot easier, but it also means that at
the working level, the staff level, they appreciate that they are being given
some responsibility rather than being ordered and regulated by another
department. They are given the
responsibility to act in an educational way, an encouraging way and, on
occasion, in a regulatory way.
It is a fine line for them as well. If you are invited to an agricultural
business to provide advice, I think it is increasingly expecting for the
agricultural officials to provide advice as to what the standards they will be
expected to live up to environmentally, but ultimately the licensing and
permitting rests with this department.
You might argue, that means we get all the bad news. On the other hand, it means that we have a
lot of help out there. It is a mindset
that, frankly, does not change overnight.
With the greatest respect to bureaucracy and government employees, a
broad‑based approach like that is not always one that is readily
embraced.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chair, again I want to put on the
record that I really do worry about our street angel‑house devil sort of
perception that continues to linger.
The last thing in the remaining minutes before we break is
around the issue of the use of mediation with respect to the choice of this
mediation process. When you choose to
use a mediator, I would like to know what criteria you use in selecting a
mediator. Are you expecting someone to
have a high level of familiarity with the technology that is being proposed by
the proponent, someone who has knowledge of the relevant acts and regulations,
or is there a term of reference or a process for the issue clarification, which
is, I understand, watching this mediation process, to be one of the salient
activities this mediator is supposed to do and that is, find out, in dialogue
between the proponent and the community, what the real issues are that have to
be identified and sorted out?
I am not likely to have a chance to come back on this. What is the relationship, for example,
between this mediation process and the use of the sort of technical advisory
committee approach in which members of various government departments examine a
proponent's plans or intentions and offer comment for clarification? Is there any connection or linkage between
the TAC process as it exists or is capable of existing and the mediation
process?
Mr. Cummings: No, not directly, but I think perhaps the
member has given me too much credit for being involved in the mediation
process. It is an area that I very much
want to move into more aggressively, as does the department, as does the Clean
Environment Commission, because‑‑well, I am not sure I could fathom
your analogy you used a few minutes earlier, but the regulatory side solely
cannot solve all of the problems that cross my desk or the desks of the
Department of Environment.
Very often, if it were simply a regulatory decision, it
would be made and be over with, and everybody would go away mad, because very
often the debate and the discussion that we get into goes far beyond
environmental concerns. It goes into access
to knowledge, future intentions of the proponent, planning issues with the
local municipality, and there are a number of other things that revolve around
it, but those are the first ones that come to mind that are not normally easily
dealt with by strictly an environmental process.
I have been part of a national task force, as has Jenny
Hillard and others here in Manitoba, developing protocol for consensus decision
making. Mediation does involve or can
involve, should involve consensus decision making if it is going to ultimately
bring peace to certain issues. But it is
a little tricky combining consensus decision making with ultimate regulatory
responsibility resting with departmental officials or with ministers. In trying to bring that balance, mediation,
which can take on the mantle of consensus decision making, has been
demonstrated to work in areas.
For example, Philip Environmental, I am led to believe,
sited a hazardous waste treatment facility in B.C.‑‑and the name of
the community escapes me at the moment‑‑but they did it by
consensus decision making. The community
recommended that the Clean Environment Commission, or the equivalent thereof,
did not have to sit for public hearings prior to the licence being issued for
the operation of the facility, because they became comfortable enough with the
standards and the intentions of the proponent and the proposal that they were
putting forward that they were actually able, on the recommendation of the
community, to short‑circuit the process.
B.C. is known for some very strident environmentalists and
some very strongly held views where environment is concerned. So I think that is a singular example for
them to have been able to have pulled that off.
I have not yet seen examples of where I have had that kind of success
here. I am getting the time‑out
signal here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour is now 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour. I am interrupting the
proceedings of the committee. The
Committee of Supply will resume considerations at 8 p.m. this evening.
JUSTICE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of Supply
is dealing with the Estimates of the Department of Justice. We are on item 4.(b) Adult Corrections, page
113 of the Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
4.(b) Adult Corrections.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Madam Chair, I just would like to take a moment before the committee
begins to introduce Mr. Wayne Scarth, who is the Acting Director of Adult
Corrections.
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): I apologize to the minister if I go slightly
back over material we may have begun to have covered in the last Estimates, but
my notes are sketchy, and it has been since Thursday night. So I apologize for that.
I would like to ask the minister about getting back to the
programs at Headingley. I understand
there is a sex offenders program‑‑there is an actual specific unit
in Headingley Correctional Institute for sex offenders. Is there a domestic violence group at
Headingley, or is this the group that there previously was a long‑term group
that is being re‑evaluated, the program for domestic abusers?
Mrs. Vodrey: The long‑term program for domestic
violence offenders was offered within the community. That is the program which is being re‑evaluated. Within our institutions at the moment there
is the short‑term program for domestic violence offenders. Those are offered at all of our Adult
Corrections facilities.
Ms. Barrett: So the long‑term group which was for
domestic abusers, which is being re‑evaluated, the minister says was offered
within the community so it was not offered within the correctional system
itself. If that is accurate, can the
minister explain why that is the case with domestic violence offenders when it
is not the case with sexual offenders?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that in the past
offenders in the area of domestic violence were by and large not sent to the
institutions, and so their long‑term program was offered within the
community.
The short‑term program which is now offered within
the institution is now following the Pedlar report and, that is the short‑term
group, in addition to one‑on‑one counselling, is currently what is
available. As I said earlier, we are
evaluating the protocol for the long‑term intervention.
Ms. Barrett: I know that in the past domestic violence
cases most of the time did not come to court and if they did not, they were not
treated with the seriousness with which they should be. We have had a change for the better in that regard
so that would make sense if the vast majority of domestic violence cases never
were imprisoned. Then within the
community is the place to try and connect with those abusers. We should have them within the community now,
and I do know there are programs for domestic violence offenders within the
community. I wonder why there is only a
short‑term program within the justice system itself for those growing
numbers of men who are being incarcerated for domestic violence cases. Why is there not an internal program similar
to the sexual offenders program for domestic violence offenders within the
justice system itself?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that for those individuals who
have been incarcerated, by and large the incarceration is for a shorter
sentence. At the moment, the program is
for a short‑term group and individual counselling.
The longer‑term group is for those people who have
probation and the long‑term group that was offered on the probation side
is the one which is being re‑evaluated, and when the new protocol is
developed then that will again be piloted.
I use the word piloted because we want to look at its effectiveness on
the probation side. If in fact it turns
out that is an effective model, then we can look at putting it within the
institutions. We will always have to be aware
of the length of sentence within the institution as to whether or not that
would be the mechanism we can use within the institutions as opposed to
probation or with probation.
* (1500)
I would also say too that some of the offenders are sentenced
to institutional time and probation time, in which case they would receive the
short‑term group intervention, individual intervention within the
institution and could receive the longer‑term intervention outside in the
community while on probation.
Ms. Barrett: The short‑term program is 24 hours in
duration, which is over a one‑week period. Everyone who works in the field of domestic
violence, including the Pedlar report, says that while a short‑term
program is important, in order to effect meaningful and long‑term and
permanent change in the cycle of violence, particularly as it relates to the
offender himself, you need to have a long‑term intensive program. There are long‑term intensive programs
in the community.
My understanding was, there was one in probation. I gather that is the program that is being re‑evaluated. Right now in the Corrections probation
system, there is only the short‑term, 24‑hour program for domestic
violence offenders and then a placement, if you will, on the wait list for the
nongovernmental agencies who provide the long‑term, four‑to‑six
month intensive treatment program through the community. Is that correct? Those are the two avenues available for
domestic violence offenders?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I can say to the member that at
the moment we do not contract or enter into agreements with programs for the
long‑term group program. We have
done some contracting to deliver the short‑term program, but I would ask
her to not forget that we also continue in the one‑on‑one case
management counselling of those individual offenders who are in the community
and also in the institutions. So we have
the opportunity of both individual and a short‑term group program. As the member knows, too, we are now looking
and evaluating the long‑term group program. That has to be done. That is an important part, to look at the
effectiveness and, as the member knows‑‑I believe she has worked in
group‑‑we have to look at a number of factors relating to that
effectiveness of the group. We are doing
that now, and I will look forward to that evaluation being complete.
Ms. Barrett: The minister states that there are no
contracts for the long‑term group programs. Does that mean that, for example, the groups
that have been run out of Evolve or the groups that, I believe, have been in
the past available through the Family Centre are no longer being utilized by
Corrections?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I would say at the moment
that is my understanding, but I would like the opportunity just to clarify, and
the staff individual who would have that information is not in the Chamber, in
the committee at the moment. I expect
that he will be later on during questioning.
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate that and would be more than
happy to wait and get the answer to that question. I think it is important.
The minister has talked about the fact that there are no
long‑term programs currently available within the justice system for
domestic violence offenders, only the one‑week group program, but that
the individuals continue on with their individual case management. This gets me to another area. What is the training provided to Corrections
personnel who will be working with these individual domestic violence offenders
after their one‑week group is over?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that there
is an eight‑day training package in family violence which has been
offered throughout the correctional system to more and more parts of the
correctional system and that that program has been offered to approximately 200
persons who have received that training to date.
Ms. Barrett: These 200 people who have received the eight‑day
training program, are they the only ones who will then be dealing with the
domestic violence abusers upon completion of their group?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that of the 200 persons who have
received that training, yes, that is Community Corrections individuals who
would be delivering the one‑on‑one, and also the group, and also
refers to individuals within the institution who deliver the one‑on‑one.
There is also a general orientation to Corrections officers
within the institutions, so that all Corrections officers within the
institutions have had some training in the general orientation form, and then
there is the more in‑depth eight‑day training package.
Ms. Barrett: So there are approximately 200 members of the
general Corrections probation area who have received this eight‑day
training course that are both within the probation system and the institutional
system.
If that is the case, again, what I would like to know is,
every person who has been convicted of domestic violence and is either
incarcerated or put on probation‑‑instead of incarceration or after
incarceration‑‑gets this counselling and case management from an
individual, either in the institution or in the probation system, who has
undergone the eight‑day training session, is that correct?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed the answer is yes.
* (1510)
Ms. Barrett: The 200 individuals who have been trained, is
this voluntary training on their part or is it obligatory if they are in a
certain part of the system? How are
those people selected for that training?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed, first of
all, that for any Corrections officer who is working with offenders in the area
of domestic violence, they must have taken the program. There are then also employees within
Corrections who have taken the program based on their own particular interest
or based on the experience that they have had in working with these offenders
in the past to ensure that we have within the Corrections side enough trained
people, at least a pool of trained individuals.
Ms. Barrett: Who provides the training program?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that the program
was developed internally. It was
developed in consultation with members of the community. It was developed in consultation both with
Corrections officers who work within the institutions and also who work on the
Community Corrections side or probation side.
It is delivered internally by Corrections people to those individuals
who are taking the program.
Ms. Barrett: So the people who deliver the training
program, have they received additional training other than the eight‑day
session themselves? Have they had
something such as Training the Trainers kinds of training?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that in all
cases they have been trained as trainers.
Ms. Barrett: So within the correctional system and the
probation system throughout the province of Manitoba, would it be accurate to
say that any individual who has been convicted of domestic violence will
receive the one‑week group and individual counselling after the one‑week
group and have as their probation officer once they have been released, if
there is a probation period, a probation officer who has also been trained
with, at the very least, this eight‑day training course?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, it is certainly the objective
within Corrections to have both to have occurred. If there is a wait in Manitoba at some point
in Manitoba to enter into the group, then those individuals will have the
individual case management while they are awaiting time to enter into a group.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister give me a sense of what
the wait is within the various correctional institutions? For example, is there normally a wait in any
of them? If so, about how long is it, or
does it fluctuate?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, within the institutions,
if there is a wait, it is because of numbers of offenders, that there are not
enough offenders to form the group. So
within the institutions where there is a wait, again, it is to get the critical
mass of offenders in order to run the group.
That is also the issue in Community Corrections, particularly in rural
Manitoba, that the individual may continue on with a one‑on‑one
case management, but it is again the issue of having the number of offenders
who would form the group within an area that the group can then operate.
Ms. Barrett: What is the critical mass for forming a
group? What does Corrections use as the
minimum and the maximum number in a group?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed the numbers
are in the range of 10 to 15 participants.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister explain why the floor is as
high as 10, when in many cases five or six individuals, particularly in an area
such as this, is often seen as a better or certainly as effective a group size? Why is it 10 as the minimum? Secondly, especially in the rural areas where
it may take longer to get to that critical mass of 10, it would seem to me that
it might be worth looking at to see if a more flexible number could not be
arranged so that these men could get this group faster.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that the
long‑term group is intended to be therapeutic in its focus. The short‑term group, according to the
Pedlar recommendations, is intended to be educational and to develop
awareness. The numbers that we have
generally worked with are in the range of 10 to 15; however, I am informed
that, particularly in the rural areas where we may not attain that number, we
certainly have run smaller groups.
Ms. Barrett: Would a domestic violence offender ever leave
a correctional institution without having attended a group?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that is likely to happen only
in very rare cases where there is an extremely short sentence for the offender
and where Corrections is able to look at the length of a very, very short
sentence. Then they will occasionally
give the individual temporary absence to attend a group in the community so
that the individual is able to be on track with the group work.
* (1520)
Ms. Barrett: These community groups, I am assuming are
more‑‑is that within the probation system or‑‑so the
community groups that the minister is talking about are within the Corrections
probation system. I would like to ask a
bit about the long‑term group that is being re‑evaluated, but
before I do, I am wondering if the same staffperson who is being waited for on
the contracts for external long‑term groups is the same individual who
would have the information on the previous long‑term group.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, as that is being developed
in the area of Community Corrections, that individual will be available in
appropriation 4.(d) for the member's reference.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): What initiatives is this area taking to
encourage or involve the community in the prevention, reduction or the
elimination of partner abuse?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, if the member's question is
focused on the institutions, in terms of community involvement within our
institutions in the area of programming for domestic violence offenders, I am
told that we do not involve the community within the institutions in the area
of programming for domestic violence offenders.
Mr. Mackintosh: I guess the problem that we have here, and it
may be one that is systemic in how the department is structured, but we have
domestic abuse programs, one being developed to be implemented, hopefully, by
probation services and another one within the Adult Corrections end of it. I am just wondering if it is not more
appropriate that there be a joint development of these programs in that the
objectives are the same and that many of the tools will be the same. I wonder if the minister would comment on
that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I would like to reassure
the member that there is in fact certainly co‑ordination and
participation between both the Adult Corrections side and the Community
Corrections side, that the training package is the same. But to the member's question of actually, and
if I understood him correctly, what does a community do within the institution
in terms of the delivery of the program or participation in the program, I am
informed that they do not. However, the
community does participate in the development of the protocol or the program
itself. That protocol or program itself
is the same one which is delivered within the community and within the
institutions. So there is community
input at the development end. Within the
institutions, there is not community input in the delivery of the program. The program is delivered by correctional
officers.
Mr. Mackintosh: Maybe it is some confusion on the last day of
Estimates when we talked about these programs.
I think that we had been mixing up sex offenders with domestic abusers. At least there was some confusion in my mind,
but the minister advised about a program involving 465 men, 38 groups. Was that the sex offenders?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, that was the program in
the area of the domestic violence group within the institutions. That was Adult Corrections meaning within the
institutions. That was domestic violence
group.
Mr. Mackintosh: The one‑week domestic abusers program
in the institutions, I understand, is 24 hours in duration. On a calendar, is it a four‑day
program, because I have not heard descriptions about a four‑day program
and I want to ensure whether that is it?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that the time
frame may vary in some of the institutions.
It may be offered as half a day a week, in which case it may then be extended
to approximately a two‑week time period, whereas in other institutions,
it may be offered within a single week.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would like some confirmation about the
length of time that one serves a sentence.
When one is sentenced for less than 90 days, I have heard it said, and I
would like to clarify it one way or another, that one may only serve one‑sixth
of the sentence. I wonder if the
minister would let me know whether that is accurate or inaccurate.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, just to clarify, if the
question was, if a person is sentenced to 90 days, do they only serve one‑sixth,
I am told that would occur in a very, very, very exceptional circumstance.
* (1530)
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister could advise what
circumstance that would be.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, just to clarify my last answer
so that I have made myself clear on the record, the member asked if there was
release at one‑sixth of the sentence for 90 days. I am told that at one‑sixth that is the
time for review of eligibility for temporary absence. The kinds of things that are considered or
criteria that are considered in this review are, is the individual a first‑time
offender? Was the offence a nonviolent
offence? Does the individual have good
employment prospects? Is the individual
assessed as a risk to the community or not, or what level, and that it is also
supported by community contacts and discussion with community agencies.
Mr. Mackintosh: Absent from that criteria is, I think, a most
important one. That is the wishes and
concerns of the abused partner and, of course, whether or not the individual
would be returning to the home. I wonder
if the minister would comment on that?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the member's question, I was not aware that
he was speaking only of the area of domestic violence. In the area of domestic violence offenders,
yes, I am told that certainly, where we can reach the victim, there is always a
discussion and a consultation with the victim, and also a discussion with the
victim of the release plans for the offender.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to clarify the discussion about the long‑term
program, is my understanding correct that the long‑term program is only
being developed in Community Corrections and not Adult Corrections?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the long‑term program is
being developed by Community Corrections taking the lead on the
development. However, there are
institutional representatives on the committee which is developing the long‑term
program. As I said, we are looking for
that to take place in the community, but we would also like to look at its
success and would like to look at the possibility of then putting the long‑term
program within the institution always subject to the amount of time an
individual may be within the institution.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the minister prepared to talk more about
that development of the long‑term program at this point?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that the staff
who are most involved will be here under 4.(d), for the member's reference.
Mr. Mackintosh: I notice that one of the expected results in
the Detailed Estimates includes revised criteria for temporary absence. I would like to know where the status of
changing the criteria for temporary absence is at.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I can tell the member,
this is a process which is still in progress, and we are still looking at the
process of developing the criteria. We
are comparing our criteria with that of other provinces, and we are also looking
at theirs. We are looking at the numbers
of temporary absences, and we are looking at the effects of changing the system
of temporary absences in any way and what the effect will be on the system.
Mr. Mackintosh: When does the minister expect, No. 1, the
review to be completed and, No. 2, any changes to be implemented?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am told that the revised
criteria would be available in approximately three months time. However, any implementation would certainly
depend upon the recommendations that were within that report.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is there currently a consideration of whether
there should be a program other than this long‑term program, in between
the duration of this long‑term program and the short‑term program
that is 24 hours in duration? Is the
government looking at a third option?
* (1540)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, in the member's questioning now,
I believe he is going back to the area of programming for domestic violence offenders. In that I am told that at the moment we are
really focusing on the development of the long‑term program; we do have
the short‑term program, both of those programs being group. In addition to that we have the one‑on‑one
case management. So at this time we have
not been examining another alternative.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the one‑on‑one counselling for
domestic abusers conducted by in‑house staff?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, yes, I am informed that it is.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister can advise what the
time parameters are of the individual counselling. I mean is there any limit in its
duration? Is there any limit in the
number of hours that could be available based on the circumstances of the
individual?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am told that the intensity of
the one‑on‑one counselling will vary with the needs of the
individual. However, it is expected that
the one‑on‑one counselling would be in place until the end of
sentence.
Mr. Mackintosh: We will go back then to the counselling
initiatives when we get to 4.(d).
I just wanted to briefly look at the issue of sex
abusers. I understand that there is a
discussion paper now available from the federal government looking at options
for an abuse registry. I am wondering if
the minister has reviewed that document and if she has formed any opinions as
to its application?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the proposal for the federal
government, to this point, is in the discussion stage. The federal government has not, to our
knowledge, sent a document for our review.
The federal government has put forward an idea and has contacted the
Department of Justice in Manitoba to set up a meeting to discuss the use and
the proposed setting up of a registry.