LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday,
March 4, 1992
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
J.P. Walsh, S. Gephter, G. Gauthier and others requesting the government show
its strong commitment to dealing with child abuse by considering restoring the
Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Georgina Shingoose, Germaine Mentuck, Jeffrey Clearsky and others requesting
the government show its strong commitment to aboriginal self‑government
by considering reversing its position on the AJI by supporting the
recommendations within its jurisdiction and implementing a separate and
parallel justice system.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition, and it conforms
with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against
Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help
abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
I have reviewed the petition, and it
conforms with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens
of the
THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by
all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world;
and
It is the responsibility of the government
to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and
Programs like the Fight Back Against Child
Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with the
crime; and
The decision to terminate the Fight Back
Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to
help abused children.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislature of the
* (1335)
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENT
Hon. James Downey
(Minister responsible for Native Affairs):
Mr. Speaker, I have a ministerial statement that I would like to
make. I have copies.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to report to the
Legislature that aboriginal affairs ministers from across
The meeting resulted from the Annual
Premiers' Conference held in Whistler, B.C. in August of 1991. At that time, the Premiers instructed their
ministers responsible for aboriginal affairs to meet with the aboriginal
leadership to determine ways to deal with issues of longstanding concern to
aboriginal Canadians, including self‑government. The Premiers also directed the ministers to
address issues related to federal offloading of costs for aboriginal
educational and social programs.
This meeting ended with agreement to work
together to develop co‑ordinated approaches to aboriginal issues. The two‑day meeting was a unique
opportunity for the ministers and aboriginal leaders to build relationships
between governments and Metis, Inuit and Indian leaders and discuss ways of
dealing with issues of longstanding concern to the aboriginal peoples,
including self‑government and improved delivery of services to or by
aboriginal peoples.
The meeting was attended by ministers with
responsibility for aboriginal affairs and officials from
Presentations and deliberations focused
on:
the need for the federal government to
fulfill itsconstitutional, treaty and legislative responsibilities innegotiations
and financial arrangements;responsibilities for off‑reserve aboriginal
peoples;mechanisms to deal with potential conflict of laws offederal,
provincial and aboriginal governments;applicability of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms;the need for the federal government to assume itsjurisdictional
authority for Indian, Inuit, Metis peoples andlands reserved for them under
Section 91(24) of theConstitution;the powers required for aboriginal self‑governments.
Ministers, officials and national leaders
discussed and agreed to an ongoing process to address the Canada‑wide
concerns of Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples.
Delegates expressed regret that neither
the
We were pleased, Mr. Speaker, with the
results of our first meeting. We had a
meaningful information exchange and feel that our agreement to an ongoing process
is a positive step in addressing the aboriginal agenda. Thank you.
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I for one am glad that this
meeting finally took place in
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in spite
of the meeting that took place, it is a start.
I would also say to this government that the amount of time it took this
government to make a response, which aboriginal people were not satisfied with,
to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry leads me to ask a lot of questions of this
government and its sincerity in dealing with issues that affect aboriginal
people, such as self‑government, constitutional issues and those issues
that affect aboriginal people directly here in
I also want to point out to the Deputy
Premier that up until now the track record of this government has been not
great. As a matter of fact, it has been
dismal as far as dealing fairly with aboriginal people in
* (1340)
Another example I want to give is the
treaty land entitlement, those bands that have their claims validated by the
federal government. I hope that this
government is sincere in saying that they are willing to work things out with
the aboriginal people.
Once things get going after the
constitutional process is finished, I would hope that this Deputy Premier (Mr.
Downey) will be just as anxious to meet with his federal counterparts and
ensure that treaty land entitlements are finally settled because that is one
integral part of the aboriginal self‑government. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the tabling of this announcement today by the Minister
responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) in the
I think it quite frankly asks more
questions than are dealt with in this submission by the minister today. For example, he indicated that their
negotiations and deliberations focused on the need for the federal government
to fulfill its constitutional treaty and legislative responsibilities in
negotiations and financing arrangements, yet this government is going to
participate in multilateral negotiations with the Prime Minister, in which
aboriginal issues are going to be very much on the table, and this government
will not take a leadership role in having the aboriginal communities invited to
participate in that meeting so they can hear from them in a meaningful way.
If, for example, it is going to be potentially
possible for one province to send observers, surely it is equally possible for
observers to be there from our aboriginal communities, so they can give
technical advice on the distribution of powers as it may affect the self‑governing
model proposed by our aboriginal peoples and their inherent right to that
governing model which we have all accepted.
He went on to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that
they had in fact specifically discussed Section 91 of the Constitution. Section 91 is one of the recommendations in
the Dobbie‑Beaudoin report which is presently on the table and which is
going to be pieced off in a variety of ways from provinces to the federal
government and from the federal government to the provinces. He also indicated that delegates were in
agreement that all provinces should attend, all the more reason why all
provinces should attend the multilateral negotiations beginning next week.
Unfortunately, we are going to conduct those negotiations without a principal
player at the table itself, only there in a consultative manner.
While we are pleased that they had this
meeting, if there was any real faith in the process that is now undergoing with
our aboriginal people, then our aboriginal people would be asked to be present
at any and future negotiations on the Canadian Constitution.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act and The Jobs Fund Act): Mr.
Speaker, under Tabling of Reports, I have the 1991 Annual Report of the
Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation that I would like to table.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the Third Quarterly Report for the Province.
At this time also, I would like to
announce that the provincial budget will be coming down a week from today,
March 11 at 2:30 p.m.
* (1345)
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Budget
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the Minister
of Finance has announced today the budget for the 1992‑93 year.
Mr. Speaker, in 1990, this minister said
continuously throughout the House, in November and December in our session,
that the recession would be over in a matter of months and that there was light
at the end of the tunnel, the recovery was just around the corner in the
In the 1991 budget, the minister and the
Premier stated continuously that again the recession would be over shortly,
that we would have a 7.8 percent unemployment rate in the
Mr. Speaker, a very direct question to the
Minister of Finance: In light of his
forecasting failures of the past and in light of the very serious difficulty
57,000 unemployed Manitobans face today, will the budget he produces next week
be a budget that continues to reduce jobs and opportunities in this province,
or will it be a budget that finally creates opportunities for the 57,000 people
who are unemployed?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I have
to refute every fact that the member has just laid before the Chamber. In my view, the four budgets that we have
brought to date, given the fact that every one of them has had some element of
tax reduction, given that we have decreased the payroll tax, given that we have
decreased personal income taxes, given that we have decreased sales taxes to
the tune of $30 million, as we no longer cascade on the federal tax, I would
say we have had more stimulation effects through our budgets than indeed the
old model which the NDP used to use, that is, to try and buy jobs, defer the
costs which we now have to pay by way of increased taxes.
Mr. Doer: The Minister of Finance did not answer the
question. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance's predictions of 7.8 percent
would be 39,000 people unemployed. We
now have factually 57,000 Manitobans unemployed. That is the issue facing Manitobans. We have a 51 percent increase in social
assistance in the city of
Unemployment
Rate
Forecast
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I have a second question to the minister. He predicted last year in his budget‑‑and
let us get the facts straight. In 1992,
the government of
I would ask the Minister of Finance
whether he is sticking to the prediction he made last year in this House with
his budget, and will he be sticking to the 7.7 percent unemployment rate or
38,000 people unemployed in the province, rather than the 57,000 we see today?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will
gladly provide to all members of the House, indeed to the public of
I might point out, Mr. Speaker, I probably
am not the first Finance Minister to miss forecasts, and if I am, I know for
sure I will not be the last.
Education
and Training
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, our problem
with the Minister of Finance is not the fact that he missed the forecast in
1991 and the fact that he is going to miss unfortunately the forecasts of
'92. What our problem is with the Minister
of Finance is that he is missing the boat in terms of creating jobs and
creating opportunities in this province.
I would ask the Minister of Finance‑‑[interjection]
The member who is responsible for the Tupperware plant closure in his own
riding should probably be quieted‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Doer: A further question to the Minister of
Finance. This government has talked long
and hard in all kinds of speeches and press releases about their investment in
the future through education and training, yet last year's budget showed one of
the largest decreases in funding and support to community colleges, ACCESS and
other programs, as the member for Wolseley (Mrs. Friesen) has been pointing out
day after day after day in this House.
Are we really going to invest in the
future of our young people in next week's budget, or are you going to continue
to just talk about it and cut at the same time in your budget that you present
next week?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, let me
say from the outset, there will certainly be elements of next week's budget
that will address youth unemployment, and certainly, there will be areas of
that budget that will also talk about the inclusion of skills training with
respect to the next year. Indeed,
announcements will be flowing in due course from the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) giving specificity to that announcement.
Mr. Speaker, let me also point out that
tax increases per the NDP approach to governing is the greatest destructive
force on youth employment in this nation.
That has been proven out over and over again; that has been proven out
throughout the world. I daresay, if the
members opposite were in control, the youth unemployment rates would be
significantly higher than they are today.
* (1350)
Budget
Revenue
Sources
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should
check the record when it comes to youth unemployment because he is dead
wrong. The losers are the young people
in the
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Finance. In the 1991‑92
budget, the estimate was that the province would lose some $88 million in
revenue in corporate and individual income tax.
The third quarter report that the minister has just tabled predicts even
greater losses than that.
My question to the Minister of Finance
is: How is he going to do those
wonderful things which some people doubt the government will actually do, with
respect to employment and training, the need in health care and educational
institutions, when the province continues to lose millions of dollars in
revenue, as businesses close across the province, as people become unemployed
and people move out of the province? How
is that going to be done?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it is
not an easy job to craft a budget today; I do not care what political stripe
you have. Indeed, when the member
opposite was on the executive bench of the former government, if he had asked
himself and his colleagues that very same question so that the governments of
the day, through a five‑year period, did not go into deficit $500 million
to $600 million for five years in a row, I say, my job and my task would be easier. There would be more funds in place in support
of the youth who are unemployed in this province.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, in 1987, when the Minister of
Finance stood in the House and said that he would balance the operating budget‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
This is not a time for debate.
Economic
Growth
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question is to the Minister of Finance or
perhaps the Deputy Premier.
What is the Minister of Finance and this
government going to do to slow the rise of the misery index in the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The question has been put.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I do
not know what this misery index is. I
know what misery is. I know there are
people today who are suffering. I
wonder, using the so‑called misery index that the member alludes to, what
the people in
I say to the member, what we will attempt
to do is bring balance into this budget.
We will attempt to make sure that there is no greater increase in tax
load to the extent that we possibly can do so.
We will continue to make sure that the important social programs that
Employment
Creation Strategy
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, the minister said he does not
know anything about the misery index. He
has a job; 57,000 other people in the province do not.
Mr. Speaker, my final question to the
Minister of Finance is: Will the
Minister of Finance indicate to this House, perhaps in general terms, what
measures the province will be taking to increase the falling private sector
investment in the province of
* (1355)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad the member asked the question. No
doubt, if he asks a preamble, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr.
Stefanson) will give him more accurate details.
I would say, by my understanding as of
last week,
Provincial
Deficit Increase
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, on February 17, the Minister of Finance said he did not need the
additional monies for equalization to pay down an increasing and burgeoning
deficit. On February 24, when he found
out he had less money than he thought he was going to get in shared‑cost
programs and other programs coming from the federal government, he said he
still was not going to need the money to pay an ever‑increasing deficit.
Can he explain to the House today why we have
just received a document which shows that, as of December 31, our deficit had
gone up some $25 million?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, if I
were to table this report, indeed if I were to do a forecast, a fourth quarter
a week from today, the number of $24 million showing as the increase in deficit
would no doubt be different.
As I have said on several occasions, work
to the period at the end of the fiscal year, when significant changes occur in
a number of lines, at that time, we become aware of expenditures within
departments, as again departments are working towards their year‑end
numbers. We find out also, given
particularly through the federal government and their revisions, there are
significant changes to transfer areas.
All of that causes an impact on the final bottom‑line deficit
number.
Yes, whereas a month ago I thought that we
would be able to bring in the deficit at a lower level than we had budgeted for
and indicated in the second quarterly report, the reality is today, as we look
forward, there will be a slight increase, not one that will be six‑ or
eight‑fold as compared to many other provinces, Mr. Speaker, one that is
a very small percentage in terms of what we said as of the second quarter.
Department
of Education and Training
Underspending
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): One of
the figures which is very clear in this budget is that retail sales tax revenue
has gone down by $15 million, which expresses in very clear terms the lack of
consumer confidence. It expresses the
need that many people have for jobs in our community, and if they cannot get
jobs, Mr. Speaker, they need education and training.
Can the Minister of Education (Mrs.
Vodrey) explain why her portion of the budget is considerably underspent to
this point in time in the fiscal year?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): The member knows
full well that this is cash actual over cash planned. From time to time, as is quite often the
case, as usually is the case, it is a matter of timing differences. Indeed that question should more specifically
be put at the end of the fourth quarter when the books for the year close.
We do our best estimates, to put forward
what we think the expenditures will cash flow by way of quarters, and quite
often timing differences cause significant variations, Mr. Speaker, from those
forecasted cash flows.
Mrs. Carstairs: Is it not interesting that the Minister of
Education was not able to ask why her budget was underspent?
Department
of Health
Underspending
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Perhaps
the Minister of Health can tell us why his budget has been underspent by some
$12 million while we have increasing waiting lists for almost every surgical
procedure in the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend falls into
the same lack‑of‑depth analysis that other critics have fallen
victim to.
My honourable friend might know full well
that where we undertake surgical procedures is within the hospitals in
* (1400)
Government
Nursery Closure
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): On December 6, I asked this government what
the status was of the government nursery at
My question is to the Deputy Premier, the
Minister of Northern Affairs. What is
the status of the nursery now in The Pas?
Will the minister tell this House today whether that nursery is closed
permanently, a simple yes or no?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): The
member, I am sure, is well aware of the fact that the activities of tree
harvesting for some particular reason, whether they be held up for
environmental hearings, or whether they be held up for other purposes because
of decisions made by those who would be harvesting the trees, or because of the
fact that the replanting of the trees were lesser than what they were
anticipated, there is in fact the need to slow down or to close that particular
operation.
It would be my hope that, as the
activities were to be resumed after proper environmental processes were to take
place, after my colleague has restructured the deal, there would be activity
restarted or taking place at the reforestation greenhouse at The Pas. It would be our intention to have that
happen, Mr. Speaker, but it has to be done on a viable basis.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Northern
Affairs: Is the operation being
eliminated completely in
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, it would be our intention to see
that activity carry out the job of providing tree seedlings for trees that are
harvested wherever they be needed. There
is no intention to shift work activity from one area of the province to the
other. It may well take place within the
planning of the department but no intent to close one down and keep another
operating.
Mr. Speaker, let me say as well that it
would be less than responsible, as we saw in
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, my final question is again to
the Minister of Northern Affairs.
How can this government, which has
promised jobs, jobs, jobs to northerners pretend that this is fair? Has northern
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, it has been the intention of
this government, in the interest of the taxpayer and in the interest of
employing northern Manitobans, to do everything possible to make sure that
there is an environmental process being gone through, that there is a
restructuring of the negotiated deal between Repap and the
Budget
Crop
Insurance
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture, this
past year, has stubbornly refused to listen to the cries of concern from agricultural
producers and ourselves in this House with regard to the unfair application of
GRIP as it was endorsed and drawn up by this government. We and the producers said that GRIP treated
producers in certain areas of the province unfairly and penalized those who
were already hardest hit by natural disasters under crop insurance. The premiums were too high, and the coverage
levels were too low for many farmers in many regions of the province.
Will the Acting Minister of Agriculture
and Deputy Premier now support a cost‑of‑production‑based
program in next week's budget? Will he
also recommend to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) a separation of
crop insurance from GRIP so that in fact the wishes of the producers who were
at the recent crop insurance review meetings will be met?
Hon. James Downey
(Acting Minister of Agriculture): Mr.
Speaker, I am quite prepared to compare the expenditure of this government to
the farm community than what has been previously spent by the New Democratic Party
in support of our farm people, millions of dollars compared to what the
previous administration had spent on the farm community.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture
(Mr. Findlay) and this government last year committed to do a review of crop
insurance to try to find out some of the difficulties that the farm community
were having and some of the inequities.
That is currently being carried out.
I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will assess the recommendations
that will come forward, and any changes that are needed will be discussed with
the farm community to see that they in fact will assist the farm community.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, they are recommending a complete
separation of GRIP and crop insurance.
Since this minister will not support cost
of production, will this acting minister, at the very least, respect the
concerns of the southwest
Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, let me assure you that, in
previous actions of this government in the drought program, I believe in 1989,
there was a program put in place that was supported by this government and the
federal government to assist those very farmers.
I have relayed to the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) the concerns that I am sure the member for Dauphin is
hearing from my constituents as to their concern on the coverage which they are
looking at this coming year. I have
relayed those concerns to the Minister of Agriculture, and we have planned to
meet with the Crop Insurance Review Committee to find out what in fact changes
could be made or additions could be made to assist those people.
I can assure you that I am as concerned
and as knowledgeable as the member for Dauphin is as to the hardship those
people are facing.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, an underspending of his
Agriculture budget by some 6 percent this year by the end of the third quarter.
Budget
Crop
Insurance
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Can the Minister of Finance promise to
include, in next week's budget, coverage levels at least as high as the levels
in this previous year, in the current year, and premium levels no higher,
because farmers cannot afford it, than has been the case in the past year under
GRIP? Can he promise those coverages
under the budget that he will be bringing down in this House next week?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will
not be coerced by the member for Dauphin to provide insight into the budget
which is going to be open and indeed presented to people in our province next
week.
Let me say with respect to Agriculture
support, though, that there will be still significant level flowing from
supplementary funding decisions made during this present year, and the level of
funding will be maintained and I daresay increased as we bring forward the
budget into the next year.
Women's
Directorate
Hiring
Process
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Last summer the government appointed a
Miss Theresa Harvey to the position of Acting Assistant Deputy Minister for the
Women's Directorate. On July 10, not
once but twice, the minister made a commitment to open it for competition.
Can the minister tell the House why applicants
were informed that the competition was cancelled as the government had chosen
to make an appointment through an alternative method and Miss
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer that
question. We did hold an open
competition, in fact, and several candidates were interviewed. It was the opinion that none of the
candidates who were interviewed were of assistant deputy minister calibre. In fact, what we have done as a result is to
cancel the competition and to appoint directly Theresa Harvey, who has been
acting for six months and has proven that she is assistant deputy minister
material.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, can the minister then respond to
why it is a letter was sent to one of the applicants, and I quote, "I also
wish to advise that a decision has been made to cancel the competition as the
government has chosen to make an appointment through an alternative
method"?
That is in a letter that was sent out to
one of the applicants. The competition
was in fact cancelled‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Point of
Order
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the
member opposite referred and quoted from a letter. As is the tradition of this House, I would
ask him to table that letter.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to
table the letter. The name is blacked
out; I hope it does not upset the minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to thank the honourable member
for tabling the letter.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The question has been put.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my first
answer, the competition process was conducted.
In fact, there was not‑‑[interjection] Mr. Speaker, Theresa
Harvey did not apply for the job under the competition‑‑
Some Honourable Membesr: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, as I was trying to explain,
Theresa Harvey did not apply for the competition. Those who did apply were interviewed, and it
was the opinion that none of those who applied for the position were of an
assistant deputy minister calibre.
Theresa Harvey, who did not apply, was asked in fact whether she would
consider looking at the job in view of the fact that people from within
government and from the community over the past six months have written to me
and indicated that she is doing an excellent job in the position of assistant
deputy minister for the women of
Multicultural
Secretariat
Hiring
Process
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the question quite simply, so
that the minister is able to answer the question, is‑‑[interjection]
It is a supplementary question. Did she
open that particular position to fill the term position that Ms. Alice Kirkland
filled? Has that been done?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of
bulletining that now.
Government
Nursery Closure
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I have some additional information which I would like to provide for
the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) as it related to his question, and that is
that the summer production will be carried out at The Pas nursery this summer.
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting
Minister of Natural Resources. The
My question is: Does the minister support the conclusion of
this report, and if so, what portion of the predicted $63‑million cost
will be provided by the taxpayers of
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Acting Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am going to take that question as notice on behalf of the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), who is attending a federal conference on
forestry.
FederalProvincial
Review
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, can the acting minister tell the
House if the department will allow for an independent decision on this
proposal, unlike other projects, and commit to a joint federal‑provincial,
basin‑wide review before any water is allocated?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Acting Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, again, I will take the details of the question as notice on behalf of
the Minister of Natural Resources.
Federal-Provincial
Review
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, the
same question for the Minister of Environment.
Can the Minister of Environment tell the
House if he will allow for an independent decision on this proposal, unlike
other projects, and commit to a joint federal‑provincial, basin‑wide
review before any water is allocated?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I am
offended that the member would phrase his question, "allow for an
independent decision." He had
better have some facts to back that up, or withdraw that accusation.
Mr. Speaker, our environmental process
allows for a full and complete review, and there will be an independent
decision made.
Hazardous
Waste Management Corporation
R.M. of
Montcalm Negotiations
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(St. Norbert): Mr. Speaker, the constituency of St. Norbert
was happy to hear the decision made by the Hazardous Waste Corporation last
Friday.
My question is to the Minister of
Environment. Seeing as this has been
before the community for some time and the community of St. Norbert has spoken,
will the minister be going forward to cabinet, at the earliest opportune time,
to bring forward a resolution to this problem?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, yes, I
have received instructions to begin negotiations with the R.M. of Montcalm.
Pharmacare
Clarythromycin
Exclusion
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
The minister at that time suggested that
it was because the manufacturer was providing this drug free of charge, and
when that practice discontinued, it was left without any coverage. The minister
will now know that he is dead wrong, that in fact this happened as a result of
deliberate government policy and a change through Order‑in‑Council
to exclude any investigational or emergency‑release drugs.
I would like to ask the Minister of Health
if he is now prepared to restore coverage for clarythromycin to make it
feasible for people with AIDS to buy this otherwise prohibitive drug?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Madam‑‑or Mr. Speaker, I almost
went back to the good old days of the member for Wolseley in the Speaker's
chair.
Some Honourable Membesr: Oh, oh.
Mr. Orchard: I assure you there was no reflection on the
current Chair.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend raised
the issue of this pharmaceutical. The
circumstance under which we will not pay for this pharmaceutical is that it was
being provided free of charge during clinical trials. Those clinical trials were completed. A notice of compliance has been sought by the
manufacturer and has not been received.
It has been normal past practice by the manufacturers not to charge for
those pharmaceuticals until they had a notice of compliance. It has been the policy of government not to
pay for drugs for which there is no notice of compliance.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the circumstance
that is introduced and confirmed in the Order‑in‑Council my
honourable friend refers to. What we are
trying to do, because this drug is involved with one or two patients‑‑but
there are thousands of drugs on the horizon for which a similar charge by
companies will be asked without a notice of compliance, and we can not accede
to that kind of demand from the manufacturers.
* (1420)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me just ask the Minister of Health, very
succinctly, why the individuals in question, people with AIDS, dealing with
very difficult life circumstances, have been paying for this drug for a good
long period of time and being reimbursed to the tune of 80 percent as a
standard practice under our Pharmacare program?
I have the documentation here if the minister would like to peruse it. He is wrong.
He has delisted these programs, and I am wondering if he will now show
some compassion and restore Pharmacare coverage for this important medication?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, there is no question that all of
us have compassion and would like to have that pharmaceutical provided at
minimal or no cost to those receiving benefit from its use, but one cannot make
decisions on the basis of an individual case or two cases, and an individual
disease and an individual drug, because what my honourable friend is suggesting
is that we open the floodgates, and to whom we open the floodgates are
multinational pharmaceutical companies who up until AZT were providing drugs
for which no notice of compliance was granted by the federal government. They were supplying those pharmaceuticals
free of charge.
Now, Mr. Speaker, is my honourable friend
suggesting, based on this one pharmaceutical with a couple of instances, that
we should open the floodgates for all future drugs to the benefit and profit of
multinational pharmaceuticals?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I just do not know how the
minister can say that when these people were covered‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Cyclosporine
Exclusion
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I cannot
give further specifics on the 7‑year‑old circumstance, which I am
investigating at present, but I do not believe that the same principle is
involved. I believe that cyclosporine
has a registration notice of compliance for certain applications. This appears to be one which was beyond that,
hence the letter that went out.
* (1424)
Mr. Speaker, let me establish, so my
honourable friend does not have the ability to sidestep the principle that is
involved here, there is no monopoly on compassion in the New Democratic side of
the House. Let me assure you of
that. I can only assume that my
honourable friends in the New Democratic Party want the taxpayers of
We cannot do that, Mr. Speaker, and we are
asking those companies to continue with past practice‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Orchard: ‑‑of supplying those
pharmaceuticals free of charge.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Change
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed?
Agreed and so ordered.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
ask‑‑I do not know if this is the time or not, but I would like to
ask whether or not, before I call Orders of the Day, whether there is a
willingness in Proposed Resolutions, private members' hour, No. 7, whether or
not there is a willingness of the House to change the sponsor of that
resolution?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to change the sponsorship of Resolution 7?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, as I commented to the government House leader earlier, if there would
be leave‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am asking the question: Is there leave for the honourable government
House leader to change the sponsorship of Resolution 7? Is there leave?
Some Honourable Membesr: Leave.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, there
is some difficulty for members in hearing what is being proposed. Our caucus is prepared to grant leave. You may wish to ask members to pay attention
so that we can deal with it; we are certainly willing to grant leave.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable member.
Is there leave? No, leave is denied.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would
you call the bills during debate in the order in which they stand on the Order
Paper, except I would ask you to call Bill 10 first, and then revert to Bill 9.
DEBATE ON
SECOND
Bill 10‑The
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 10, The
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): I am pleased to follow the debate on Bill
10. My colleague the member for Point
Douglas (Mr. Hickes) I think has outlined a very lengthy series of concerns
with respect to this bill, and more particularly with the approach this
government has taken on hydro development‑‑
* (1430)
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Laying
out your party's position?
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the member for Arthur (Mr.
Downey) is asking me from his seat whether I will be laying out my party's
position. I will certainly be laying out
my position and the position of the New Democratic Party with respect to this
project and other megaprojects as they affect our economy and the environment.
I begin my remarks by saying those two
things are, in my opinion, ultimately inseparable. We cannot do what is economic on the one hand
and ignore the environmental consequences on the other hand, because we do that
at our peril not only in terms of the social cost but ultimately in terms of
the economic costs. I think we have seen
that kind of dilemma‑‑[interjection] in the past.
Mr. Speaker, the member for Arthur (Mr.
Downey) wants to talk about our history, and I simply remind the member for
Arthur that the history of hydro development is not the sole purview of the New
Democratic Party. In fact, the damage
that has been done to northern
It is true that succeeding governments,
certainly the NDP government, the Schreyer government, proceeded with what only
can be termed a prohydro development agenda.
We are all collectively paying for the consequences of some of the
mistakes that were made by the Conservative government in the 1960s and, quite
frankly, the NDP government in the 1970s.
We want to say at the beginning that this
is not the 1970s. It is no longer even the 1980s, which many people will say
became the decade of the environmentally conscious. Until 1980, there were very few average
citizens, people who were not involved at the time in Greenpeace or Earth Watch
or Energy Probe or a number of other organizations that were set up in the
middle '70s designed to start warning people about the consequences of
megaprojects, about the consequences of man's activity on the environment in
general.
The debate on this bill, I guess,
nominally centres around the increase in authorities, capital authority that is
provided to
In 1988, when the current government first
assumed office on April 26, 1988, there were negotiations going on with Ontario
Hydro, which we had all hoped would lead to the signing of a major, firm hydro
power export sale to the
We knew at the time that many of the
complications which faced the province in the '70s and the '80s with respect to
hydro development would be only increased because of environmental concern,
because of the concern of bands and communities in northern
We understood as we were structuring that
deal, and if a deal was concluded, that any decision ultimately to proceed with
the development of another Hydro project on the
Mr. Speaker, it did not matter which party
was in power, the same pressures would have been on the government. The same pressures from the aboriginal
communities‑‑the same pressure from the aboriginal communities that
had been affected dramatically in a devastating fashion by the flooding of the
Nelson River system and the
We knew that those communities would be
putting additional pressure on to have compensation issues addressed. We knew as well, as the government is finding
out, that environmental groups would be demanding answers to tough
environmental questions before they would provide any kind of encouragement or
support to another energy project.
Mr. Speaker, those things are given. The government should not today say, well,
that is a surprise, we did not expect that kind of opposition. We did not expect the groups that raised
those concerns to be so vociferous, so tenacious, in wanting their issues to be
addressed. This government, I believe,
has failed to satisfactorily inform, provide information to, consult with those
very groups which everyone could have predicted were going to be opposing, in
one way or another, the government's intention to proceed quickly as a result
of ultimately the signing of the Ontario Hydro sale.
I want to dwell for a few minutes on some
of the problems that I think are becoming apparent with the government's
current approach, and I want to start first by saying, even prior to the
signing of the Ontario Hydro Agreement, the government, it seems to me almost
inadvertently, has made a serious error‑‑and it was made by the
minister then responsible for Manitoba Hydro‑‑by not consulting
with native groups and northerners to improve the Nelson‑Burntwood
Collective Agreement, which was signed by
Mr. Speaker, aboriginal leaders in
northern
(Madam Deputy Speaker, Louise Dacquay, in
the Chair)
The facts were that in the 1970s the
number of native people working, directly employed on Hydro projects, ran
around 10 percent. For projects in the
1960s, the percentage was significantly lower, probably not more than 2
percent, from what I have been told.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we undertook, prior
to the development or the initiation of the limestone project, to consult with
aboriginal groups, both Indian leaders and tribal council leaders, but also
Metis and other northern community leaders to ensure that when a new Burntwood‑Nelson
collective agreement was signed, that there were very significant preference
clauses which would protect the interests of northerners and particularly
Native northerners when it came to the Hydro project.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on top of that, we
spent significant effort, and I was part of the northern working group that
visited literally dozens of communities throughout northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, we worked with
Canada Employment and Immigration. We
had an agreement, a training agreement with them, and by the time the project
started, many of those training programs were underway and others were in the
planning stages. Even that was perhaps too late‑‑too little, too
late.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government of
the day had an opportunity, first to design a collective agreement that
strengthened the northern preference clause, strengthened the obligation of
Manitoba Hydro to employ northerners, to begin the process of bringing those
people into training programs so that they would be ready when construction
already started, and they blew it.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the people of
northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld) asked me if I am going to support the bill. I can tell the member that while there is
much in the bill that is worth supporting, including perhaps the suggestion
that Manitoba Hydro be given additional authority, I am only going to support
the bill if I can be satisfied that someone on the government's side, perhaps
the new Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro, hears those concerns and
outlines some way of addressing those concerns because if they are not
addressed, no one in northern
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to start by
the first one. The Burntwood‑Nelson
agreement is now a signed agreement, and it was done without the appropriate
consultation, without the appropriate consideration of the interests,
particularly of aboriginal people and young aboriginal people who would have liked
to ensure their involvement in the project if and when it proceeds.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the second problem
that the government has created for itself is with respect to training. We were criticized, and members of the
Liberal Party went around in the 1988 election calling Limestone
lemonstone. There was the implication
somehow that virtually no one‑‑and the Minister of Education and
Training kept on with the most insidious, misleading comments about the
training program that I have ever seen from a member in this Chamber,
suggesting that there were only six people trained, six people who were
actually trained under the Limestone training and employment agency.
* (1440)
Madam Deputy Speaker, the fact is that
there were more than 2,000 people trained; trained, I will grant, at varying
levels of apprenticeship programs, but also many completed training in short‑term
courses for truck driving, cooks, security guards and a host of other training
programs that were offered‑‑literally thousands of people. There was one shortcoming that I have always
acknowledged, that members on our side have always acknowledged, and that was
the lead time to ensure that people could begin, for example, in a Level 1
apprenticeship program in carpentry and graduate as journeyman carpenters
before the project began.
This government, Madam Deputy Speaker, had
the opportunity to correct that shortcoming.
They still have the opportunity if they want to sit down and negotiate
with the Department of Indian Affairs and
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would recommend to
the Minister of Northern Affairs an editorial that was written by Mr. Fred
Cleverley, someone who has been hypercritical of New Democratic policy for
many, many years, who wrote what I can only term a glowing report of the
Limestone training and employment agency in 1988 before the election.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
Arthur‑Virden (Mr.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this government is
missing a golden opportunity to do things better. What is perhaps more frightening is that the
government does not appear to have the will to do anything that is even
positive, let alone more successful than what was done when the Limestone Hydro
project was underway. That is problem
No. 2 that the government is failing to address.
Problem No. 3, Madam Deputy Speaker, is
the whole question of compensation. I
will give compensation. I will give the
government, and then the Minister responsible for Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey), which is not my normal course, some compliment, some support, in that
there have been a number of negotiated claims in the last number of years and
that the government continues, I believe, and Manitoba Hydro continue to deal
with the claims, the outstanding claims in the Northern Flood Agreement as best
they can.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have always said
that the Northern Flood Agreement is a nightmare for all parties
concerned. It is not easily enforceable
and it is not easily interpretable, that there are many aspects of the Northern
Flood Agreement that should never have been included. It is a nightmare of legalese and
qualification.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government has
the obligation to northern flood communities and to I guess any communities who
may be affected, either by the very limited flooding that is going to occur as
a result of the construction of Conawapa or the impact it has on the flora and
fauna of that area or the impact of the construction of Bipole III, the new
transmission line, which is also part of this deal. They have an obligation to make sure that in
advance of the project, the implications, the environmental, the economic, and
the social implications, of whatever is to be done are understood in advance of
the doing.
In other words, the government has to
begin today to assess what environmental damage there will be and to begin to
identify the individuals and communities that might be affected and address the
compensation questions in advance, because if there is one lesson that history,
in terms of hydro development, has taught us is that going back (a) to mitigate
the problems or determine the nature of the compensation, it is almost too late
after the fact. It is too late to come
to agreements about the scope of a compensation and the nature of that
compensation, and it needs to be done before the project gets approval.
If that does not happen, we will see the
same scenario repeating itself in
Mr. Edward Connery (
Mr. Storie: Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have acknowledged
that the member for
They have an opportunity. We have made enough mistakes in our history
in the last 75 or 85 years now of hydro development, 85 years, going on
86. We have enough history to know what
kind of problems are going to present themselves. We have the technology, we have, I hope,
everything but the will it appears, to deal with those questions. The Minister of Northern Affairs, the
Minister responsible for Hydro (Mr. Downey), should be directing Manitoba Hydro
to do as thorough and exhaustive a study of the compensation issues which may
be raised as a result of this project as possible.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there is the third
problem. We have the problem with the
collective agreement, the Burntwood‑Nelson collective agreement. We have the problem with the training, and we
have the third problem with the compensation claim.
* (1450)
We come now to perhaps the most delicate
of the problems facing the government and Manitoba Hydro, and that is the
question of the environment. Madam
Deputy Speaker, the member for
An Honourable Member: Of Limestone.
Mr. Storie: ‑‑of Limestone, and the answer
is, yes, there was. Manitoba Hydro did an environmental review of the
environmental damage that was going to be caused by the construction of the
Limestone project. Madam Deputy Speaker,
the member asked the question who built the dam, and I will be the first one to
admit that the environmental review for Limestone was not thorough enough. I guess the consciousness of the people of
Also, of course, the construction of the
Limestone Generating Station was quite different from the experience of the
'70s when huge lakes, like Southern Indian Lake, were flooded to create the
reservoir of water that would be used to support the hydro generating stations
on the
So the scope of the damage is not what is
in question here. The scope of the damage, I think, we admit in terms of
construction of the project will be quite limited. The construction of Bipole III, particularly
if it goes along the east side of
But Madam Deputy Speaker, what has changed
from 1985, 1984, when Limestone was being considered, in 1992 what has changed
fundamentally is the public perception of the government and Manitoba Hydro's
responsibility to the environment. There
has been a profound change in the expectations people have with respect to the
government's role in protecting the environment. That is what has changed
fundamentally.
It has not just changed in the
public. It has changed within the New
Democratic Party. I think that there is
an increased awareness that we cannot proceed to deal with megaprojects in the
way we have in the past. If you want
another example, and it is going to be a very contentious one, you have to only
talk about the
I am not saying that we should begin this
environmental review believing that necessarily it means the elimination or the
discontinuation of the construction of hydro generating projects. I believe quite sincerely that we should
undertake it with an open mind, an open mind which asks the question, what are
the environmental consequences going to be?
To put it crassly, Madam Deputy Speaker, what are the financial
implications if we want to mitigate those damages? What is it going to cost us? Are the damages
that will be created manageable in any understood sense?
The government has to proceed cautiously
and openly when it comes to the environmental review. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
government is off on the wrong foot. The
government has already tainted the environmental review process, and I am not
pointing the finger unnecessarily at the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings).
I recognize that there were, obviously,
outside considerations and concerns being addressed through the media to the
minister and the committee that he established which were beyond his
control. It only highlights for the
Minister of the Environment and the government that the public perception, when
it comes to these kinds of projects, is heightened. They are concerned about the environment and
the impact, and they want an honest, straightforward and an independent process
to do the evaluation. They do not trust,
frankly, the Manitoba Hydro to do their own assessment, nor do they trust the
The government has the opportunity to do
themselves and the province and the country, perhaps, some good in doing a
thorough job of the environmental assessment of this project. It is beginning on a bad note. I believe that we need, certainly, a thorough
review which will include assessment of the individual community‑by‑community
results of this project. That is item
No. 4.
Item No. 5, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I
believe the government is juggling at the moment and another area where they
are perceived to be weak is with respect to conservation. There are some in our province who believe
that conservation could forestall the need for the Conawapa project. This government, I think, has either not
understood the total picture well enough or not understood this issue well
enough to deal with the people of
Conservation can work, and it can reduce
the energy requirements, the requirements of Manitoba Hydro to produce energy
for the people of
We watched with interest as Manitoba Hydro
developed its own demand‑side management program. They presented a proposal to the people of
Madam Deputy Speaker, I just happen to
have a copy of a 1991 report from an independent consultant which dealt with
the whole question of how effective a demand‑side management program
could be in Manitoba Hydro. It is very
interesting reading, but let me summarize the result.
The consultant goes to some length to sort
of identify three different scenarios.
He provides a base case load growth presentation, assuming that we are
going to see some continued growth and that only what he calls natural
efficiencies will occur. In other words,
people amend their ways in minor ways and make some projections about what our
energy demand is going to look like in the long term. He also presents us with another potential
scenario which I believe he called the economic potential scenario. Finally, he said what was more realistic he
called the attainable potential.
What is interesting is that if it were a
perfect world, if Manitoba Hydro would implement aggressive conservation
measures, if everybody, every individual consumer were able to or wanted to
purchase the absolutely most efficient appliances and insulation and all the
rest of it, this consultant believes that we could save approximately 30
percent of the base case scenario.
What is more realistic is what the
consultant calls the attainable potential which uses existing technology and
some assumptions about how quickly that technology will be assumed by people
consuming hydroelectricity, how quickly they will transfer from existing gas
stoves or electric heat to high energy efficiency gas stoves and so forth. The conservation target that he proposes is
approximately 8 percent of the base case.
He says that is immediately attainable, not with outlandish projections
about what people should do in terms of converting to fluorescent lights or
timers or appliances, but he says that is an attainable goal. I believe that Manitoba Hydro should be
proceeding with an aggressive energy management system.
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to perhaps
set myself apart from some other people.
I want to add that while our Hydro Crown corporation could achieve a
savings of 8 percent, even with a modest demand‑side management program
or a series of programs, like Power Smart‑‑we believe that this
should go ahead, but that should not be confused, in my opinion, with the issue
of whether there is also a potential for
We can ask the question: How can we save energy in the province and turn
that saving again into something else, or should we be getting export power for
the sake of export power to create wealth for the
Madam Deputy Speaker, the government began
this whole exercise in terms of Conawapa by saying that they were beginning to
plan for Conawapa for domestic use.
Unfortunately, that argument fell from underneath them, and by 1990 we
knew that the projections the government had used to support the construction
of Conawapa for domestic use had fallen apart.
By 1990, we knew that the domestic consumption would not require another
generating station until at least 2009.
We learned sometime later that this may be as late as 2012, and if you
use the assumptions from the consultants that Manitoba Hydro hired, we may not
need that power until 2015, if we can actually achieve savings of 8 percent by
using demand‑side management. We
may not use that power.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what should a
responsible government do, faced with this kind of confusion over what our
domestic requirements are going to be?
What should they do? What they
should do is due diligence on behalf of
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is what they
should do. Why is the government
unwilling to do what is only responsible?
Why will they not send this back and have the Public Utilities Board
address this very basic question: Is the
sale to Ontario Hydro, the 1,000 megawatt sale, still in the best interests of
Manitoba Hydro ratepayers, given that domestic requirements would not dictate
building the dam or having the dam completed until perhaps as late as
2015? That is the question, and only if
we get an independent view, only if other groups, interveners, are allowed to
ask questions of Manitoba Hydro, are we to know with any degree of certainty
whether the answer remains yes.
Let me say this. If the government is willing to do that, if
we can have that independent review of the economic merits of proceeding with
the Conawapa project and the answer to that is an unequivocal yes, then I am
prepared to support the construction of Conawapa. Having said previous to that‑‑and
I do not want the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) to use my comments
without referencing the concerns I expressed about the environment, about
training, about compensation and about the collective Burntwood agreement‑‑that
is our position. No one on this side has
said no to Conawapa. What we have said
is that Conawapa, if it is to proceed, must be done right. All of those issues have to be addressed in a
straightforward, open and honest fashion, because there is too much at stake to
rush into this and get it wrong.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I see some members
on the side opposite nodding. They are
agreeing that this is what should happen.
I think there are two outstanding problems. [interjection] The former
Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro is saying that it has always been
Hydro's intention. I know that it was
also Hydro's intention to provide the government with the very best possible
guesstimates of where our low growth would be, what the domestic demand would
be by the year 2000 or 1999. They have
been wrong too often and we deserve a thorough review of the question of
whether this agreement can stand on its own merit, whether there will be a
return to Manitoba Hydro and to Hydro ratepayers.
I believe that the first analysis was
correct, that there were significant economic merits to the agreement with
Ontario Hydro. I believe that, but the
changing base of information around this agreement leaves me and it leaves a
lot of Manitobans wondering whether in fact the same can be said with all
certainty today. We deserve an answer to
that question.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that is where we
stand. That Conawapa as a project if it
can be supported on its economic merit, if it can withstand an independent
environmental review, if it can withstand the scrutiny of independent experts
on its own, if the question of compensation, if the question of training, if
the question of northern preference, if those issues can be addressed, then I
think we will have a project that will benefit
Madam Deputy Speaker, I put the government
on notice, as did my colleague from Point Douglas, that we want it done
right. If this government expects us to
support this project there are certain things that they have to do. One of them is to be honest with the public
and send this project back to the Public Utilities Board for that other review
on the new circumstances.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) are
asking the taxpayers of
As I have said, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
government has fallen short in a number of areas already when it comes to this
agreement. We can only hope that in the
next few months and years they will do better.
Thank you.
Mr. Downey: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be closing
debate.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
10, The Manitoba Hydro Amendment Act.
Today, I would like to talk a little bit
about the importance of Manitoba Hydro as a publicly owned utility, the
benefits of hydroelectricity compared to other forms of energy, the problems
with hydro as a form of energy and finally to talk about Conawapa.
I think all parties in the House now are
of the opinion that it is important to have Manitoba Hydro and other utilities
as public utilities. I do remember a few
elections ago, the Conservative Party considered selling some Hydro dams to the
private sector. However, this policy was
not particularly popular with the public, nor was their party at the time. I think they have abandoned that idea as not
being a good idea. Probably they abandoned it because the majority of
Manitobans believed that having Manitoba Hydro as a totally publicly owned
utility is the wish of the majority of Manitobans.
* (1510)
Of course, we know that the Conservative
Party has the ability to poll, especially when they are in government, and that
they try to stay on the side of the majority, so that is probably why they
agree with this even though there are probably some free enterprisers in their
cabinet who would gladly sell off Manitoba Hydro, but they know that is not popular
with the public. So for the time being
they support Manitoba Hydro as a public utility. Of course, we on this side
have, I think, probably always supported Manitoba Hydro as a public utility and
that it is in the best interests of Manitobans to keep Hydro in the public
domain.
When one looks at the benefits of
hydroelectricity as a source of energy, I think, compared to other sources,
hydroelectricity is probably one of the most benign or environmentally
friendly, to use today's jargon, of all different kinds of energy, although
probably solar energy would be less harmful to the environment. In terms of a large source of available
energy, hydroelectricity is comparatively a good source of energy in
On the other hand, there are a number of
reasons why Hydro is problematic.
Currently, there is research going on into the effects of flooding. In
Of course, the biggest effect of Hydro is
on people. In doing research for my
speech today, I came across a special issue of a periodical produced by the
Canadian Association in Support of the Native Peoples, an organization which
still exists, but has been renamed as the Canadian Alliance in Solidarity with
the Native Peoples. I have their
bulletin, Volume 15, Number 3, from December 1974.
This whole bulletin is full of articles
about Manitoba Hydro and about flooding and its consequences, and I found an
excellent quotation by Mr. Walt Taylor.
This quotation is taken from Indian Truth magazine for May 1974.
Mr.
This is, I think, an excellent summary of
megaprojects, especially hydro dams in
Although I have not seen the flooding in
northern
When we got there, we discovered that this
family had a multitude of problems, that the stove was really only a minor
problem. It was obvious that a number of
people in this household had been drinking, and it was having a serious effect
on the whole family.
When we left, Mrs. Keeper told me a very
interesting story about this family, because she had known the same family when
they lived at
There was 100 percent unemployment, and
everyone there was on social assistance.
The effect that it had on their community and on their life and on their
families was devastating. It led to a
total social breakdown of the community and of families, because they were on
social assistance, because they had no employment, and because they turned to
drinking.
So she had followed this family. She knew them in
Another problem of the flooding, of
course, was fluctuating water levels, and this problem has not gone away. It continues to this day, and the results are
often tragic, especially in the winter when people are operating snowmobiles on
the ice, and they do not know that there is an air space under the ice. The result is that snow machines go through
the ice and people drown.
So, as I said in my sermon at
There are many other effects which I could
list, but I will not. I do, though, have
a clipping from the Winnipeg Free Press of Saturday July 7, 1984, and it is
titled, Bitterness: legacy left by Hydro,
northern community grapples with impact of flooding.
In conclusion, we know that we have cheap
hydroelectricity in
Of course, the government tried to
mitigate the effects of northern flooding, and so a Northern Flood Agreement
was signed with a number of bands in northern
The next difficulty was in the
implementation, as the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) pointed out. Some communities were not compensated for up
to 30 years after the effects of flooding began. A number of people in our society tried to
intervene on behalf of aboriginal people, to support them in their campaign, to
provide moral support and at times even legal support to the Northern Flood
Agreement communities.
One of those organizations was Project
North, a national church coalition. They
had a local coalition here, the Manitoba Inter‑Church Coalition on
Resource Development, and I was part of that coalition throughout most of the
1980s. I was present at a meeting with
the Native Affairs Committee of Cabinet and lobbied that committee of cabinet
to implement the flood agreement.
We felt that aboriginal people were not
having much success with implementing the flood agreement, and so one of the
stands that the Inter‑Church Coalition on Resource Development took was
to lobby against the construction of Limestone.
It was our position that the Limestone Generating Station should not be
built until the Northern Flood Agreement was fully implemented. That was an
unpopular stand with the government of the day who disagreed with the position
that was taken.
* (1520)
Now we see that not much has changed. We see northern Indian bands who are saying
that Conawapa should not be built until the Northern Flood Agreement is fully
implemented. So it seems that the stance
of the Inter‑Church Coalition on Resource Development, back about 1984‑85,
was a prophetic stance, which said that this was wrong and that the Limestone
generating plant should not be built until the Northern Flood Agreement was
implemented. Now, almost 10 years later,
we see northern Indian bands saying the same thing about Conawapa.
The Conawapa project is something which I
believe our party supports, but we have a number of concerns. We want those concerns put on the
record. First of all, we are concerned
about the Public Utilities Board hearings.
We believe that there is a need for adequate funding for all groups, and
we believe that the government should be generous in funding those groups who
are interveners and who are applying for funding for environmental assessments
and other things. I think it would be
better to fund these groups adequately and find out what the problems are ahead
of construction so that those concerns can be incorporated into the project,
which it would seem in the long run would probably be cheaper than trying to
mitigate the effects of Conawapa after it is built.
For example, I was just reading in the
Manitoba Hydro newsletter which we all received as MLAs, and I took time to
read it. They were talking about how
they had built a weir at
So we think that it would be better to
adequately fund these groups before the project is built, and probably save
money in the long run. Of course we hope
that aboriginal groups who are applying for funding will be given
consideration, and will be funded on the same basis as other groups.
Unfortunately, some of the effects that
might have been there from the construction of Conawapa will not be as
devastating or as bad as they might have been at one time because of the
effects of damming the rivers upstream in the past. For example, the river at site was renowned
for its sport fishing because of the brown trout. If you look at fishing and sport magazines
from decades past, one will read articles about the famous sport fishing.
Because of the fluctuating water levels in
the past, the brown trout have almost disappeared. I do not think it is accurate to say they
have disappeared, but I understand that the levels of fish in the river are
considerably diminished. Apparently Manitoba Hydro sent a biologist to look at
this, and less than a year ago discovered that the fish level in the river was
considerably down and that is because of already existing dams upstream from
this site on the
Whereas in the past, people were concerned
that the brown trout would be affected, now the brown trout may not be nearly
as affected by the construction of Conawapa because previous dams have already
devastated the brown trout in that river.
This is a legitimate concern.
Another concern is the beluga whales in
the
Mr. Connery: The NDP destroyed the tourism in Churchill,
Doug, you should know that. I got the
stats in my office. It went from 20,000‑‑
Mr. Martindale: The honourable member for
The second concern that we have about the
construction of Conawapa is the need for affirmative action. To the best of my knowledge, we have not
heard about any affirmative action hiring at Conawapa; in fact, what we do hear
is members of the government ridiculing our party for their affirmative action
at Limestone, which was quite good in fact.
We think that was an important part of
Limestone, that affirmative action hiring and training were a good thing, that
they worked, that they gave northern people jobs. In fact, there was a system of preferential
hiring which gave preference to native people, to northerners and to
Manitobans.
The former Minister of Energy suggests
that I ask northern Manitobans. I have a
colleague who is a northern Manitoban, the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes),
and I understand that he was the director of the training program there, and I
get my information first hand from a northern Manitoban‑‑a good,
accurate source of information. If the
member for Point Douglas says it was a good training program, I believe
him. That is all the assurance I need.
I think the problem with the current
government is that they do not believe in affirmative action. They do not want to force companies to give
preference to Native people and to northern Manitobans or even Manitobans,
because their philosophy is so entirely free enterprise that they believe that
business should be given a free hand to do whatever they want.
On the contrary, we believe that since
northern Manitobans have been the most adversely affected by hydro development
in the past, it only seems to be fair that they be given the majority of the
jobs in order to compensate‑‑[interjection]
Point of
Order
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
was rising on a Point of Order, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have forgotten what
I was going to say, darn it all.
* * *
Mr. Martindale: I think the Minister of Justice just set a
record for the shortest Point of Order ever in the Manitoba Legislature. It can happen to any of us. All of us get moments of memory lapse here.
I would hope that the government would
follow our advice, that they would build affirmative action into the hiring
policies for Conawapa, that they would listen to northern Manitobans, because I
am sure that they are going to hear from northern Manitobans. I am sure that they are going to hear from
aboriginal people in northern
We in the New Democratic Party are in
favour of building Conawapa. I believe
that we have repeatedly put that on the record; however, we believe that it
should not be built until the demand warrants it. We know that the demand keeps changing, that
at one time the demand was supposed to be there in the year 2001. We now know, thanks to the honesty of the
former minister of Hydro, that the demand will not be present until about the
year 2009 or 2010, and so the case cannot be made to construct it now. We think that the only reasonable and
sensible thing to do is to build Conawapa when the demand justifies it.
We also know that because Manitoba Hydro
has bought into the Power Smart program, there is an intention to decrease the
demand for hydroelectricity in
* (1530)
I think what is required is not just a
minor change or a tinkering in demand and in conservation, but what is really
required is a change in lifestyle, whereby all of us consume less energy, and
whereby all of our manufacturing and businesses and institutions, including the
Manitoba Legislature, consume less energy, particularly from nonrenewable
resources. We should also reduce our
demand of renewable resources such as hydro because of its usual harmful
effects on aboriginal people.
In doing research, I found a quote from
the Prairie Messenger periodical from August 30, 1981, a good Catholic
magazine. I think this speaks directly
to what I was saying about stewardship, to use the theological word, of our
energy and resources. This quote is from
the Canadian Bishops' Labour Day Statement entitled "Northern development: at what cost?"‑‑their 1975
Labour Day statement. "In the final
analysis what is required is nothing less than fundamental social change. Until we as a society begin to change our own
lifestyles based on wealth and comfort, until we begin to change the profit‑oriented
priorities of our industrial system, we will continue placing exorbitant
demands on the limited supplies of energy in the north and end up exploiting
the people of the north in order to get those resources.
"Ultimately, the challenge before us
is a test of our faithfulness in the living God. For we believe that the struggle for justice
and responsible stewardship in the north today, like that in distant
I think that sums up very well what I
wanted to say about changing our lifestyle.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I
would like to repeat that we are not opposed to Conawapa. We just have some concerns, concerns that all
of us are putting on the record, concerns about the Public Utilities Board
hearings, concerns about affirmative action and concerns about the demand and
the need for building Conawapa and the timing of it.
I would like to conclude by quoting from
Chief Walter Monias, the former chief of
Mr. Minister, the people of northern
I think that sums up our position. The government has been accusing us of being
opposed to jobs, being opposed to construction jobs, which is definitely not
true. No one in this party is opposed to
jobs. No one is opposed to any project
which creates jobs and the inference is that we are opposed to progress. We are not opposed to progress. What we are opposed to is what the former
chief of
That concludes my remarks, Madam Deputy
Speaker. Thank you very much.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 9‑The
Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on the proposed motion of the
honourable First Minister (Mr. Filmon), second reading of Bill 9, The Economic
Innovation and Technology Council Act (Loi sur le Conseil de l'innovation
economique et de la technologie), standing in the name of the honourable member
for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). Is there
will to permit the bill to remain standing?
Is there leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
speak on Bill 9, The Economic Innovation and Technology Council Act, a
government bill which proposes to create a new version of the Manitoba Research
Council.
It is, as I noted in my reply to the
throne speech, a recycling of yet another promise on the part of this
government. However, it does have some merit.
It is considerably late perhaps in their term of office. It is something which other governments have
moved to a number of years ago, amongst them
It is a bill which proposes to create a
large council which will provide the opportunities for, as it says in the bill,
ongoing leadership to generate prosperity through innovation, to provide for a
dialogue and to sponsor interaction among stakeholders, including the exchange
or transfer of personnel, ideas, research and technology.
In order to do this, Madam Deputy Speaker,
the government has also indicated the range of people who are to be appointed
to this council. Many of them of course
are people I think that any government would appoint to this particular type of
innovative council. They are
representatives of trade unions, at least two are, out of the 20‑odd
people listed here. There are presidents
of multinational corporations such as Cargill.
There are people representing some aspects of the academic world, the
president of the
All of that is fine and well. I think the government has looked at some
aspects of
I would suggest, however, to the minister
that he would be wise to consider other aspects of
I think another area that
* (1540)
Again, I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, as
we see the future of our agricultural sector shrinking as we become more and
more exposed to the international market, unprotected by our various
governments on this, that I think that is one of the areas that we are going to
have to depend on, to expand on and to see the future of
A third area that I would advise the
government to look at is the area of design.
Again, Madam Deputy Speaker, the
I am sure that the minister and First
Minister (Mr. Filmon) who introduced this bill are aware of the strides that
It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker,
again, as we see our agricultural economy shrinking in
It seems to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, a
government which prides itself on its understanding of the economy and its
understanding of management, that this is a very narrowly based approach to the
I suppose, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would
have to share the concerns that many speakers on our side of the House have
expressed before, that although we recognize the importance of this council, we
acknowledge the expertise of the people who have been suggested as appointees,
we also question, as is the responsibility of the opposition in fact to
question, the serious intent of this particular government innovation. As I said earlier, it comes at a relatively
late time in this government's tenancy of government offices, and it comes
really with very little linkages to the basic educational strategies which will
need to be in place to support this innovation.
It is a recycled promise. We have heard about it before; it has been in
other throne speeches. The
So I do have some concerns about how
serious the government is. It did not do
it earlier. It did not do it under the
existing institutions that it had, and it offers this as a major strategy in
its throne speech. It is obviously a
strategy which is going to take some time to get up and running, as they say,
and one that seems to have limited linkages to other basic initiatives which
should be there to support it, particularly in the education field but also, I
would say, in the government's much‑touted sustainable development
institutions.
This council will need a staff. It will need, as it says in the act, libraries. It will need direction. It will need research. It will need to develop linkages with people
already working in these fields throughout
On the other hand, Madam Deputy Speaker,
we do see a lack of commitment from this government in other areas. There were $700,000 which were cut last year
from the predecessor of this council, the Manitoba Research Council, and that
would give one great pause for thought for any kind of commitment of this
government to research, to innovation and to the development of
I would particularly like to draw the
attention of the government, Madam Deputy Speaker, to the difficulties of
establishing in Manitoba an innovation‑based process when you do not have
the basic infrastructure of education in place, particularly when your
innovations are to be based upon the sciences and mathematics and upon
technology, when we know very clearly that these are the areas which are
suffering in Manitoba. I suggest from a
report of a year ago, from the Department of Applied Mathematics at the
This particular department, in 1990, at
the
So they noted that they were very
seriously, in 1990, below the level required to attract good scholars to our
various departments. In turn they note this
will adversely affect the level of research, development and teaching in the
long run. Many of their students, they notice, apply to the
I draw to the government's attention at
the very beginning, you can create this council, you can put the $10 million in
place which will give it the basic infrastructure to start its deliberations. When it comes to putting something into
practice, it is going to need those mathematicians that we have not been able
to attract to the
Again last year, in the larger department
of mathematics and astronomy, because of budget cuts they noted that their
undergraduate sections of 100 people in each were forced to close, two sections
of them. So 200 students in
* (1550)
The mathematics department also noted that
they had 100 people apply in 1990 to their department for positions in graduate
programs. They were able to offer on the
basis of their ability to teach them 35 students, but of those 35 who were
offered positions on the basis of their academic background, Madam Deputy
Speaker, only two could be offered financial support. Now graduate students by this time really, in
many ways, have very few alternatives, particularly for the first year of
graduate studentships.
The number of students who have been
supported by the national granting agencies in the first year of university
programs at the graduate level have been constantly reduced in favour of
supporting more advanced research, so we are getting to very serious
difficulties in ensuring that we have a continuity of new blood and of
maintaining students coming into the graduate programs. I draw this to the government's attention in
the programs of mathematics, chemistry, physics and other scientific
departments.
You cannot simply set up a council,
appoint 20‑odd people in a variety of existing companies and expect them
to develop a strategy for economic innovation in
I could talk about the difficulties in
zoology. I could give you some
statistics, for example, from the underfunding of science research in
In geological sciences the province
contributes nothing to the support of research.
I hope that is drawn to the attention of this new council which is being
set in place, because if you are going to have a long‑range plan‑‑and
we need a long‑range plan in Manitoba for the innovation and for economic
development of the industries which are going to remain here and which we are
going to be able to retain here‑‑one of the basic elements of that
long‑term plan has to be the production of graduate students. The first element in that is attracting them
to
Some graduate students who come to
provincial universities from elsewhere will opt to stay in that province after
graduation. If they do not come here in
the first place, and when you can only offer support to two students out of 35
in mathematics, then you are not even going to attract the skilled people to
That is a very serious concern for any
government of whatever stripe when it looks at the long‑term economic
planning for
There have been some serious omissions in
the support for graduate funding in the
I will draw to the members' attention the
dramatic changes that we are seeing in the last federal budget in the support
for research generally across
A second thing that concerns me, Madam
Deputy Speaker‑‑first of all it was the universities and the
provision for graduate students' support; second of all is the community
colleges. Again, any committee, any council which is to look at the long‑range
economic development of
Community colleges, I think if we look
across Canada we will see that those provinces where the economy is booming‑‑or
at least, perhaps I should not say booming because there really is not anywhere
that is booming in Canada today‑‑but those communities which have
done well over the last 10 or 15 years in their economy are ones which have put
in place extensive community college programs.
I draw the members' attention to two of them in particular.
The second thing that the British Columbia
government did‑‑and this was done under both the New Democrats and
the Social Credit government‑‑was to develop some very strong
linkages between the community colleges and the universities. In engineering technology programs, for
example, in science technology programs, the areas where you need people who
understand the process as well as the product development, who can do the
research and who can also understand the ways to improve upon the production
processes of those elements, those are the people that the community colleges
in British Columbia produced.
They also produced large numbers of
teachers and nurses and people who would fill the infrastructure of a growing
provincial population. The linkages
between the community colleges and universities, the movement between the two,
have been very important in developing the
The second area of community colleges I
would draw to people's attention is the CEGEP, le College d'enseignement
general du Quebec. Those were very bold
experiments in the 1960s, Madam Deputy Speaker, one which I think laid the
groundwork for the creation of the new middle class of
They have, first of all, more years of
education than do students coming out of
In economic terms those CEGEPs have been
extremely beneficial, and the level of education which is available both for
technology and for academic pursuits in
I want to draw that, the role of community
colleges particularly, to the attention of this government, and to express
again my shock, my horror that this government chooses to cut community
colleges. Really, for any government which
can say out of one side of its mouth that it is interested in innovation, that
it is interested in technology, that even as the Minister of Education and
Training (Mrs. Vodrey) says every day in the House that she has a concern about
education, and yet can continue to cut at large levels. Ten percent at least to the community colleges
was cut last year, closing the doors of economic opportunity to many Manitoban
families.
I would ask the government to reconsider
those policies. I would certainly
suggest to the minister that he put that on the agenda for this new council
that he is considering. I cannot believe
that council would recommend that there be further cuts to the community
colleges. I hope that advice is sought
and that we do get the input of trade unionists and of company managers, of
vice presidents, upon the nature of the labour force that they will require and
the role that they have found that community colleges in other parts of the
country have been able to play in providing this particular labour force.
* (1600)
I want to emphasize again the role of
community colleges in developing technologists in the broadest sense. I would like to draw the members' attention
to a new book which was recently reported in Harper's magazine. It is a new book by the dean of MIT in
He argues that in the past the nations who
succeeded economically were those whose businesses invented new products. I
suppose most school children are brought up with those kinds of images of the
spinning jenny and the sewing machine and the industries and the technological
inventions, the new products, which have led to the development of European and
North American industrial expansion in the 19th and 20th Centuries.
He looks at the current spending in the
three economic leaders of the world:
They did not have the time and the market,
in fact, was cornered on the development of the product, so they said we are
going to put our money into the process.
We are going to produce it faster.
We are going to produce it better, and that is where we will put our
research and development money. In the
1950s and '60s, of course, they really had no alternatives, but they continued
with this strategy through the '70s and '80s.
If you look, Madam Deputy Speaker, at some
of the successful products introduced into just one sector of the economy, the
mass consumer economy of the post‑1970 period; if you look, for example,
at the video recorder, the fax and the compact disc player, you will find that
Americans invented the video recorder and the fax and that the Europeans or the
Dutch invented the compact disc player; but it is the Japanese and the Germans
who have in fact benefited most from those new developments because they put
their money into the research and development of technological processes, the
production faster and better and more efficiently, and the marketing better and
more efficiently, of those products.
Those are the ones which, in fact, developed.
The second thing that he points out, and I
would draw this too to the attention of the new innovation council‑‑[interjection]
I will be, do not worry‑‑is that the process technologies are the
ones that depend upon a very broadly based educational system. He argues first of all that we need chief
executive officers. The top executives
of every company should be trained in the technology of the company that they
are working in or in an ability to understand technologies generally.
If you look at American CEO's, he says
they are far less likely to be technologically aware than either those in
One of the striking examples that he
offers of this is that 25 years ago the leaders of the American steel industry
did not understand the technological innovations that were happening in Europe
in the steel industry, so that the steel industries in North America, and
certainly Canada was the same, failed to invest in the new technologies of
production that were available to them.
They have been playing a catch‑up game, as he says, ever since, to
the detriment of entire communities, of families and certainly of the general
Canadian economy as well.
So what he argues is that the new
technologies are the ones that are going to be important for
There are a couple of notable examples in
the American garment industry, in the American consumer industry, who have done
this on a very, very successful basis.
What they have found of course is that it is the retailing, the computer‑aided
design, the computer‑aided manufacturing systems which allow the
production people to know exactly and very quickly what is required in the
market. So it is not just in heavy
industry. It is in marketing, it is
throughout, in fact, the consumer world that we have created in the late 20th
Century in
It is these people who will be the
winners. These are the people who depend
upon those mathematicians, on the people in applied mathematics, the people in
the community colleges for whom this government is closing the doors. I draw that to their attention again, Madam
Deputy Speaker.
It is no use simply creating a council of
blue ribbon and dedicated people, but you do not have the infrastructure for
them to work with, and the infrastructure that you had, you have cut.
A third point that the Dean of Management
in MIT suggests is that the education that is required is not just for the
chief executives, it is not just the restructuring and the impetus and the
promotions that must be given to the technologically aware and the
technologically educated within companies, corporations, and public
institutions, but it is also to the working level of the companies.
He describes it in his article in Harper's
magazine as the education of the bottom 50 percent becoming a priority. I would not want to use those terms. I think what we should look at is the work
force, the people who actually do the production and what essentially he is
arguing, in terminology which I do not like, but his argument is an important
one: When success depends upon being the
cheapest and the best producer of products, the education of the work force,
the 50 percent who are producing and manufacturing throughout industries,
whether they are consumer industries or heavy industries, must absolutely have
the full attention of government and public institutions for their education.
They have to be able to learn what must be
learned. They have to be able to do it
quickly, and they have to be able to do it in a manner which ensures that long‑term
employment, long‑term consistency within the company or within the
corporation or public institution is maintained.
Information technologies have to be part
of the entire production process. As
Thurow argues, to do this he says: requires workers in the office, the factory,
the retail store and the repair service to have levels of education and skill
that they have never had to have in the past.
* (1610)
Yet what is this government doing? It is cutting the community colleges, it is
cutting the ACCESS programs in Engineering at the
An Honourable Member: You would not kid about a thing like that,
Jean.
Ms. Friesen: No, I would not, and you have not given him a
date either for response.
An Honourable Member: John says you are kidding.
Ms. Friesen: No, I am not kidding about that one. I think that is one of the most shortsighted
cuts that I have seen coming from this government yet.
We have to educate at a very general level
and to a high level, a large portion of a population that has not had that
opportunity in the past. It should be
again, Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the items, the first items on the agenda
perhaps, of this new council is to look at the nature of the labour force.
It is not just this side of the House
which is saying it. Look at the report of Winnipeg 2000. One of the things that they drew to the
attention of this government two years ago was the abysmal state of education
in this province.
With three universities in the province,
with three community colleges, they point out on the one hand there is the
opportunity. In many cases, in medical
technology, for example, in agricultural technology, there are very high rates
of success, but what there is not underneath is the infrastructure, the
graduate students, the researchers in training, who are not there anymore and
will not be there for any programs that this council wants to put in place.
So the sustainable, competitive advantage
depends upon work force skills. We
cannot continue to follow the American path of paying very, very small
percentages of company monies into work force training. That has to be expanded.
You probably all‑‑well,
actually I should not say that. I gather
the CBC is a political issue in this House.
Perhaps I assumed that many of you watched the CBC programs on work
force and upon skill development, comparing
So I draw, again, to the government's
attention the role of basic education, of literacy education, of the very direct
necessity of starting, first of all, with high school completion. When we have a 40 percent high school dropout
rate in
Thank you.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I move, seconded by the member for Broadway
(Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. As previously agreed, this bill will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Bill 12‑The
Animal Husbandry Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 12 (The Animal Husbandry Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
L'elevage), standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Agreed.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 14‑The
Highways and Transportation Department Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), to resume debate on
second reading of Bill 14 (The Highways and Transportation Department Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le ministere de la Voirie et du Transport),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave has been granted.
Bill 15‑The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), to resume debate on
Bill 15 (The Highway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de la route),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton). Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave?
Leave has been granted.
Bill 20‑The
Municipal Assessment Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), to resume debate on second reading
of Bill 20 (The Municipal Assessment Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur
l'evaluation municipale), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand.
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Yes.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Leave has been granted.
Bill 21‑The
Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion, the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to resume debate on second reading of
Bill 21 (The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les
parcs provinciaux), standing in the name of the honourable member for the
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). Is there
leave to permit the bill to remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Leave.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill
21, The Provincial Park Lands Amendment Act, with a great deal of concern
today, because again I see this government putting forward a bill that is not
the result of a consultative process and a democratic process that has led to a
consensus on a particular issue.
Instead, it is a bill that they have brought in unilaterally, with a
heavy hand that reflects not on the wishes and desires of those who are
affected by the bill, but reflects only the opinion of the minister in a rather
shortsighted way.
I say that I am concerned and saddened by
what he has done, because he is attempting to deal with a real problem here, with
a real concern that has faced ministers in the government for a number of
years, but the methods that he is using are certainly not consistent with the
methods that have been attempted in the past, and that certainly would have
been successful, had he taken a little more initiative and effort to see them
through to conclusion, whereby he would have had a democratic result, one that
was not imposed. A solution that would
work, in other words, because I do not believe this will work.
The problem, of course, is one dealing
with people who have their principal residence in a provincial park or have
landholdings in a provincial park, and at the present time are able to avoid
paying any taxation on that property because of the simple fact that they are
located in a provincial park and there is no authority, particularly at this
time, to derive fees or a particular taxation from those owners in the
particular provincial park that they reside.
This has caused a great deal of anguish
and concern for a number of local government districts, the LGD of Consol, for
example, at The Pas, and a number of municipalities who see some of their
residents able to move into the provincial parks, build homes there, live
there, and not be subject to the same kinds of property taxes that their
neighbours who live just outside of the parks are subject too.
Of course, that is an unfairness that has
to be addressed. It is one that we as a government, up to 1988, were in the
process of addressing, and one that we left with this minister, with this
government, under the assumption, of course, that there would be a fair method
arrived at for a fair solution. Now we
are here four years later, four years later since this government has come into
office, and they still did not arrive at a democratically derived solution.
What they arrived at was a solution that
has been posed by the minister in a unilateral way, so he is not dealing with
the problem of taxation for services provided within parks in a way that, as I said
earlier, is going to last the test of time.
The various rigours of all policies and continue to be in place over any
period of years. It is a long standing
problem that the minister is attempting to address, but he has not addressed it
satisfactorily.
* (1620)
I want to outline why we feel that the
solution he is offering in Bill 21 is not appropriate for the problem that we
are dealing with here. I want to say
first of all that I find it rather ironic that the minister in his introductory
remarks said this bill has to do with fairness, when in fact it is probably as
unfair as any solution to this problem could be. It is rather ironic for him to say that this
bill deals with fairness when it creates unfairness because of the nature of
the tax. It is a poll tax. Let us call it what we should, a Thatcher
poll tax. A poll tax is unfair, because
it is the same for those who are wealthy as it is for those who are relatively
poor.
A person, just because he is living in a
park, who some may say has a cottage or a cabin or whatever you might call it,
or an estate in a particular location that is within the boundaries of a
provincial park, does not make him or her a wealthy person. It may be a very modest little shack that
they have for using as a fishing base or for skiing or for other activities
that they might be involved in, it might be very, very modest indeed. It could be called a shack as I said. It could be called a little cabin or
whatever, but there may be also, in those provincial parks rather substantial
holdings, large homes, all‑weather cottages that become year‑round
homes that are rather large mansions with large acreages, and yet they are
going to pay the same fee under this poll tax of these Tories, the same fee
that the person who owns this little shack or cabin in the provincial park‑‑$500,
no difference. They are not going to
consider that one is a rather substantial holding, the other is very modest.
There is no relationship to the value of the property whatsoever.
The minister has completely ignored that,
and that is why we say this is an inappropriate solution. It could easily have been dealt with. There are a lot of assessors in the Department
for Rural Development, formerly Municipal Affairs, who are quite capable of
determining the value of these holdings and then could have applied some form
of taxation that had some relevance with regard to the relative wealth of these
properties, but they have not done that.
They have simply taken a very simple solution to a complex problem and
created more unfairness, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am sure that you recognize that and can see that this is creating
greater unfairness. Of course, it is unfair
not only because it is a poll tax that applies to all people regardless of
their holdings and their relative wealth.
It is also unfair because it has no relationship to services. As a matter of fact, the bill even references
the fact that there is no relationship to services. This does not imply by collecting this $500
poll tax, that in fact any services have to be provided to the individuals who
are located in those areas, in those parks.
They do not have to receive anything back.
The minister does not have to promise to
give something back. He can charge the
$500 fee and provide zero services, no services whatsoever, and the people
cannot do a thing about it. They cannot even vote him out of office, because
they do not have representation. This is
not taxation by representation.
If it was a local authority whereby they
elected the local reeve or mayor and they elected some councillors to oversee
their affairs on the local level, then they could say if they are not
satisfied, we do not like the way you are doing your job. We are going to remove you in the next
election when you come up for election.
In this particular instance, they are only a tiny voice amongst many
voices involved in the election of the particular government at that particular
time.
They may or may not be located even in the
minister's constituency so therefore have no direct vote. It is truly taxation without representation
which is something that democracies have not tolerated. We say that this minister's actions are
contrary to a democratic solution from that point of view. They fail that test of fairness and
democracy, Madam Deputy Speaker, in addition to the fact that they fail that
test of fairness from the point of view that they charge the same amount to
everyone as a poll tax does, regardless of the relative value of the property
that is being taxed.
We say, we have a Thatcherite poll tax
here that is being imposed by this Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Enns). He does not promise to do
anything for it, so he does not deserve to receive the funding. In addition to that, he does not pass on the
funds to those, Madam Deputy Speaker, who are providing the services. There is no requirement in this bill that the
minister must indeed pass on the fees that he collects, and that is estimated
at some $200,000 a year as a result of this $500 assessment for a property
holder in a provincial park.
There is no provision to pass that on to
the LGD who provides, for example, the garbage services for the individuals,
the garbage dump that must be maintained or the roads into the area,
maintained, built by the local government district or by the municipality. This minister is going to collect fees under
the guise that he is providing some service, but he says in the bill that he
does not have to provide services. He
will not even pass on those fees to the local government districts or the local
municipalities so in fact they can undertake the work that they do at the
present time without collecting anything.
I want to just preface any further remarks
on this and the remarks that I have made so far, Madam Deputy Speaker, in
clarifying that we believe that there should be a fee charged, that these
people should not be exempt from taxation.
That is precisely why we were undertaking an exhaustive negotiating
process to ensure that the individuals who were involved had input into
decision making and that, in fact, we could arrive at a democratic and fair
solution to this problem, because it was not fair that the individuals who own
property in provincial parks could in fact escape paying a fair amount of
taxation for the services that they received.
They accepted that. They
understood that they should pay a fee for that, a taxation fee similar to a property
tax that others would pay in a municipality or LGD. They understood that, and they were willing
to arrive at a mutually agreeable solution to this.
It may have required legislation. As a matter of fact, the minister had advised
the people that he was working with that were involved with this amendment, the
people that would be affected by this amendment, that in fact there were major
changes to be made in this legislation in the very near future and that he
would ensure that they had the utmost involvement in any of those changes.
As a matter of fact, the minister advised
the private landowners that complete revision of the existing Park Lands Act
was being planned for March 1991. At
that time, he advised them that this group would be invited to participate in
developing a related white paper by the fall of 1991 and then have input
regarding the final drafting of a related new bill.
The minister advised the representatives
of property owners in provincial parks that they would have direct involvement
in the drafting of a new bill and that they would be able to participate in the
development of a white paper by the fall of 1991. Those people say that they were not, in fact,
consulted. They were not involved in any way, shape or form with this surprise
bill and the solution that has been imposed by this cabinet and this
government, who say they believe in democracy and say they believe in
consultation and involvement of those who are affected.
In fact, we see precisely the
opposite. They are doing it in such a
blatant way that they have the nerve to say in the bill that the fee that they
are collecting, and I quote, need not be related to the cost to the minister of
providing services or defraying expenses.
In other words, there is no relationship between the services provided
and the fee collected. They just said a
flat fee, easy to do, easy to administer, with no sense of fairness inherent in
that system.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
* (1630)
Mr. Speaker, when you look at this
situation, you wonder how a minister could have the nerve to entitle his news
release, Levy to Create Fairness in Service Fee Collection. Levy to create fairness‑‑he is
going to create service, and he does precisely the opposite. He creates more unfairness by imposing a poll
tax upon the property owners, and the poll tax, the principle being the same
for all, regardless of their ability to pay or the relative wealth of their
property.
Now, the minister also indicates in a memo
that was put forward from his department that we have been given a copy of, in
putting forward the legislative proposal for 1992, that the legislation that we
are dealing with here is consistent with the strategic plan of the department,
and the strategic plan is qualified when they say yes, user‑pay
principles. That is the statement that
makes it fit with the strategic plan‑‑yes, user‑pay
principles.
Now we could do a lot of things with that
strategic plan of this government if user pay is going to apply to all of the
services provided by government. We
could certainly raise a lot of concerns if that was being applied in the health
care field, for example. Insofar as
parks are concerned, if in fact the government is putting in a user‑pay
principle, then why is it not prepared to offer services for those who are
allegedly being told that they are the users?
If there are no services being offered, or no discussion, or no
consultation with the so‑called users, they are in fact not receiving the
services that they should get and therefore are not users in the true sense of
the word.
The government is taking a rather
hypocritical approach on this when they say on the one hand it is a user‑pay
principle, and yet they are not promising to provide the so‑called users
with any services. I find that a
contradiction, as I found a number of things in this bill a contradiction.
So we say in discussing this bill, that
the government has failed on a number of counts. First of all, it has failed to consult and to
undertake the development of this legislation in a democratic way. This certainly violates a principle of
consultation and democratic involvement by those who are impacted by
legislation‑‑a long‑standing principle, I might add, which
our government had followed to an exhaustive degree in many instances. The Environment Act was one example where we
had undertaken extensive consultation with my former colleague at that time,
the Honourable Gerard Lecuyer who was minister for the Environment, before the
bill was put in place. There were extensive
public meetings, extensive consultation and input from those who would be
impacted, and those who were interested and concerned about what was happening
in the Legislature with regard to that bill.
We have adapted that same process to many
other bills and many other areas of government, but we are seeing a gradual
drifting away by this government as they deal with controversial issues. They seem to be entrenching and to be
refusing to go out and talk to those people who are impacted and to arrive at a
solution that certainly may not be one that they all like and they all love and
think is great, but one where they have had real input and there has been real
consultation in the final shaping of that bill.
Having been in the Legislature since, I
believe, 1966, certainly the longest‑standing member in this House, the
Minister for Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) should know that he should not try to
ramrod a bill such as this past those who are impacted. He should know
better. He should certainly know
better. He should have, if anything,
mellowed over those years and recognized that‑‑not as a brash new
minister who came in and is trying to change the world overnight and accomplish
everything that is put before him in one year or in one term of government‑‑in
fact he must adhere to the principles of constitutional democracy and that he
would ensure that the consultation took place and that there was all of this
input that I talk about before finalizing the bill.
I am rather shocked that the Minister of
Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) would, in fact, stoop to this kind of
activity. I wish and I hope that he
would read very carefully these remarks and that he would reconsider his
decision to impose the $500 fee in an across‑the‑board‑poll‑tax
way, would go back and say, I failed; I should have pushed further to have
these discussions reach completion, come to fruition through consultation; I
should have made this a higher priority in my dealings as a minister for the
people involved, and I want to put this bill on hold; I want to just let it sit
here for a while, and I want to go back and have those discussions and then
come back with perhaps a revised bill that reflects what is more democratic,
more realistic and more fair in this particular instance, insofar as the
imposition of taxation, Mr. Speaker.
I would hope that the minister would
consider that. I would hope that he
would work out the issue of who should get the fees once they are applied, once
a method has been worked out, that he would discuss with the LGDs and the
municipalities, who indeed provide some of the services, to have them share in
the monies that are collected and the taxation that is collected. I hasten to mention once again that this
would be collected in a way that would reflect relative wealth or value of the
properties involved and ability to pay.
I would hope that he would also go back
and undo the hardships and hard feelings that he has created with the people
who are affected here and who have become disillusioned with government as a
result of their involvement with this minister who has abandoned some
democratic principles in his effort to put in place a cabinet decision or a
decision that he has recommended to his colleagues in cabinet.
Unfortunately, sometimes the minister may
find himself in a position of having to raise substantial amounts of money, in
this case $200,000, and may not have wanted this to be done in this particular
way. If that is the case, we give the
minister, with his long record in this House, the benefit of the doubt, but we
expect that being a person, a legislator who is dean of this House in terms of
years spent here, he would set the example insofar as admitting that he has
made a mistake, and if he did not agree with a decision that was made, he would
say that he had no choice but to continue at that particular time with the
issue as it was presented at cabinet, he had no choice, because at that time he
may not even have been Minister of Natural Resources.
I understand the decision was taken in
1989, prior to the 1990 election. It
certainly was not announced. It probably
was the previous minister who was Minister of Natural Resources at that
particular time who in fact brought in this $500 fee. It was kept under wraps throughout the period
of the election because they thought it might have been a controversial matter
and they did not want to have it come out publicly at that time so they kept it
under wraps. Now this minister has
announced it here just a month ago, even though the decision was made in 1989,
and he is bringing in the legislation now when he thinks he can get away with
it.
I would say that the minister should be
more independent. Rather than follow the legislation of his predecessor, the
member for Rhineland, who perhaps was trying to accomplish all of the things
that the bureaucrats put before him in one fell swoop, could look at this with
second thought, and more considered opinion and more experienced opinion, and
could realize that the member for Rhineland was going down the wrong path, as
the Minister of Natural Resources at that time, that he was moving in the wrong
direction, that it was undemocratic, that it was not becoming of this
government in fact to undertake decisions on that basis, and that he could have
put this on hold. So the minister then
would have that kind of an option, considering he did not bring it back.
* (1640)
I believe the member for Niakwa (Mr.
Reimer) agrees with that. I know he will
raise that with his colleagues, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
and the previous minister who so brashly brought this in, in an ill‑considered
fashion, without undertaking the required discussions and consultation which
should have taken place. He will be a
moving force, this member for Niakwa, in having this changed, ensuring that
there is some fairness, because in fact there could be residents of his
constituency who have properties in those provincial parks, and are feeling the
impact of this unfair decision by this government.
I want to, Mr. Speaker, close my remarks
on this bill by reiterating the statement which I made earlier: that we believe that there has to be a method
put in place which ensures the people who are residing in the parks are paying
their fair share, so let no one misconstrue the statements and remarks that I
am making today.
We are criticizing this government and
this minister and the previous minister for the way that they are undertaking,
as opposed to necessarily the principle of collecting some funds from those
people who are residing in the parks, we are criticizing the government for the
way that they are proceeding and also the methods used in arriving at a
determination of the fee. An arbitrary
across‑the‑board fee is not a fair one, and certainly the methods
used were not fair. This government
should recognize that, and I hope that they will.
We will be watching that with a great deal
of interest. My colleague the member for
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), who is the critic, will be speaking on this bill in
due course, as well as perhaps some of my other colleagues, and will be making
these points emphatically with the minister in hopes that he will reconsider
what he has done with this bill and undertake the discussions required to
ensure that it is arrived at democratically and fairly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. As previously agreed, this matter will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Bill 22‑The
Lodge Operators and Outfitters Licensing
and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 22, The Lodge Operators and
Outfitters Licensing and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi sur les permis
relatifs aux exploitants de camps de chasse et de peche et aux pourvoyeurs et
apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres dispositions legislatives,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: It is agreed.
Bill 34‑The
Surveys Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources, Bill 34, The Surveys Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'arpentage, standing in the name of the honourable member
for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: It is agreed.
Bill 42‑The
Amusements Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik), Bill 42, The Amusements Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les divertissements, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
Some Honourable Membesr: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed.
Bill 43‑The
Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les regimes d'assurance‑revenue
agricole, standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? Leave. It is agreed.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I stand to
speak today on Bill 43, The Farm Income Assurance Plans Amendment Act.
It was indicated by the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) when he introduced this bill in the House that Bill
43 is a very brief bill. Its main
purpose is to provide authority to make advances to stabilization accounts to
enable payments to producers to participate in various income support programs.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this
House will agree with me when I say that our economic climate is one that is
very troubled at this time, and
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker,
in the Chair)
Mr. Acting Speaker, it is our
responsibility as legislators to ensure that legislation is fair and in the
best interest of the people who we represent, the Manitobans‑‑
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Urban Affairs): I agree with you.
Mr. Gaudry: I am glad to see the member for Charleswood
(Mr. Ernst) agrees, and he will work for the people of
Mr. Acting Speaker, advanced interim
payments have been forwarded to producers in the past and this amendment, as I
understand it, is to be absolutely sure in the future that there are no
discrepancies in such payments.
Mr. Acting Speaker, in those brief comments
that the minister said, he said the bill was very brief, but we appreciate that
he said it is designed to facilitate the ability of my department to have
program payments in the hands of farmers as quickly as possible. We know that the farmers are desperate out
there in these hard times.
Mr. Acting Speaker, our party will be
prepared to let this bill go to committee, but we will ask questions when it
goes into committee. Any proposed
amendment to the act requires much deliberation, and we will be looking forward
to discussing this bill further in committee.
I am sure that we will be listening to
Mr. Acting Speaker, I will also be brief
but like I said I will be the only speaker on this bill. We would like to see it go to committee so
that we can debate this bill further.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): As previously agreed, this will remain
standing in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
House
Business
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Acting Speaker, do I have leave to change
the sponsorship of some private members' resolutions?
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Is leave granted for the honourable member to
make change in sponsorship to a resolution?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Mr. Helwer: Resolutions 7 and 70.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): Leave?
Is there leave for the honourable member for Gimli to make a change to
Resolutions 7 and 70?
An Honourable Member: No leave.
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): No leave.
Leave is denied.
Bill 44‑The
Milk Prices Review Amendment Act
The Acting Speaker (Mr.
Laurendeau): On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 44, The Milk Prices Review
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur le controle du prix du lait, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman).
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker, for your
consideration on this matter. I rise to
speak on The Milk Prices Review Amendment Act at this particular time and to
respond to some of the remarks made by the minister at the time that he
introduced the bill.
I want to indicate today that there should
be general agreement, I believe, to move this particular bill to committee. I
intend to move it to committee today, however with the limited time, it may be
necessary to continue my remarks in the next particular sitting and then move
it to committee, unless the member has further requirements for speaking‑‑the
Liberal Party. I want to deal with a number of issues on this, Mr. Acting
Speaker, and then perhaps continue with my remarks in the next sitting, because
we are getting close to five o'clock.
* (1650)
The major points that were raised by the
minister involved multiple‑component pricing, more flexible schedule of
milk price review changes, the Milk Prices Review Commission's financial
records and audits status being changed and a removal of Order‑in‑Council
approval and requirement for the commission orders. Those were four points that he raised, and I
wish to deal with each of those in some detail.
The issue of multiple‑component
pricing is the first which has come forward here. I think this is certainly a positive
amendment, because it does reflect the consumer demand at the present
time. I think most people when they buy
milk now are looking at skim milk or 1 percent, at least 2 percent milk. Very few people buy whole milk to drink. Many buy skim milk and 2 percent and 1
percent, as I indicated. Yet the pricing
of milk has always been based on the amount of fat content, Mr. Acting Speaker,
in the milk. If your animal has
generated more fat content, you were able to get more for your milk as opposed
to less.
The fact is, at the present time the
consumers are demanding milk with less fat, so I believe that the minister is
moving in the right direction when he is talking about multiple‑component
pricing, because what he in fact is doing is ensuring that not only is fat used
as a criteria for the determination of the value of the product, but that
protein is considered and the level of minerals, for example, in milk. So I think these are important aspects to
consider. I believe this is a move by
the minister to reflect current consumer demands and is something that we can
support from this side of the House.
Insofar as the issue of a more flexible
schedule of milk pricing, under the current system in the current act each
period or time that there is a re‑evaluation of the cost of production
formula to determine if in fact the producers should be receiving more money
for their product, the trigger mechanism is plus or minus 2 percent. In other words, if there is not a variance of
plus or minus 2 percent, the producers do not receive additional funds. If the amount is 1.5 percent difference in
cost of production, producers do not receive any additional consideration. There is not a trigger in this present system
to ensure that there is a review done, Mr. Acting Speaker, unless it is plus or
minus 2 percent.
So the minister is saying, well, we need a
more flexible approach here. We need to
ensure that if the cost of production varies even 1 percent or 1.5 percent the
producers would receive that additional money.
That makes sense with the rising costs and so on. It is important to be flexible and sensitive
in the pricing mechanism.
I would suggest to the minister on this
issue that perhaps he might want to consider having a dual system, because the
minister says that he is going to have this reviewed every six months and if
there is a small change, it would be implemented. What if there is a major change within that
six month period? What if there is a
major change because the costs of feed are very high? So it is over 2
percent. The producer will not be able
to get that additional consideration in the cost of production formula until
after the six‑month period is up, until we have reached that six‑month
period for the next review.
So I think the minister might want to put
in a system that would ensure the semi‑annual review takes place, but if
there is a deviance from the cost of production value of more than 2 percent as
is currently the case that would also trigger another review. In fact, if it was three months after the
last semi‑annual review, it could be another review that would reflect
the cost for the producers, so there would be a sensitive mechanism and a
flexible mechanism truly. The minister
said he is trying to be more flexible, trying to be more sensitive. In fact this goes the other way, and there
are some dangers involved because, again, the producers may have to wait up to
six months before they could get consideration for additional costs.
That is a suggestion the minister might
want to take, and certainly if the producers are not concerned about that, then
he may not pursue that, but I think it is something he might want to review
with the producers prior to finalizing this particular bill.
Now the third point the minister mentioned
was changes with regard to the record keeping and audits for the Milk Prices
Review Commission. The Milk Prices
Review Commission up to this point in time has had a separate annual report,
separate records published in a separate report for the Legislature. The funding has been in a special fund set
aside in trust for the Milk Prices Review Commission. There was not funding taken from the
Consolidated Fund from the department as such.
That is something that has left the
commission at arm's length from government.
In a way, that is an advantage, because the review commission should be
independent, should be at arm's length in making decisions so that it is
perceived by the public as representing the public interest and certainly not
compromised in any way with regard to representing the producer interest,
perhaps more so than the public interest, or perhaps government policies of the
day, or government direction. Therefore,
Mr. Acting Speaker, it would not be subject, under those circumstances, to
reductions or major cutbacks in funding as a result of budget exercises that
may be undertaken by the department.
They have separate funding at arm's length from government.
There may be some savings, Mr. Acting
Speaker, in amalgamating this, and ensuring that there would not have to be a
separate audit done by the auditor, and so the staffing and so on would be all
undertaken by the department. That seems
to make sense from that point of view.
On the other hand, one has to consider the
arm's length relationship. We raise just
a caution with the minister with regard to that particular issue. It is certainly one that I think is necessary
to consider both in terms of the real functioning of the review commission, but
also from a perception that perhaps this is more government bureaucracy and it
is not at arm's length insofar as its review of the issues that come before it,
especially as they apply to the health standards and the price of the products
and so on. That is the major function of
this particular commission, the Milk Prices Review Commission, and one that we
have to protect in terms of the job that they are doing.
The other point that was mentioned as well
to me in discussions with some of the people in the industry that should be
made here, I believe, that up to this point in time the commission has
undertaken its own monitoring and surveying of costs amongst producers to
ensure that the cost of production formula adequately represented the costs
fairly insofar as the producers are concerned.
If that ability to monitor and undertake
the survey work that is needed by the commission is hampered in any way, as a
result of the budgetary decisions being made by the government, since this
review commission will now be under the auspices of the Department of
Agriculture, it will be something that should be considered, if there is a
hampering of the ability of the government or of the review commission to
undertake this surveying and monitoring of the industry.
(Mr.
Speaker in the Chair)
It may be that this will be handed over to
the marketing board itself, representing the producers. In that particular case, there might be some
who would say, well, there needs to be some balance there. The public interest, the consumer interest,
has to be balanced here. We have to look
at the other side of it.
I would say to the minister in this
particular area that he should consider, when passing this bill, that the
ability of the commission to continue its work independently be maintained,
that there not be budget‑cutting exercises that impact on the impartiality
of the review commission and its ability to undertake its work as it has
traditionally.
I would be pleased to continue my remarks,
Mr. Speaker, at our next opportunity.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) will have 29 minutes remaining.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
ORDERS FOR
RETURN, ADDRESSES FOR PAPERS REFERRED FOR DEBATE
Ms. Judy Wasylycia-Leis
(St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to begin discussion
for the New Democratic Party caucus on the matter before us, an Address for
Papers referring to Bill 91, legislation to curb solvent abuse, debated by this
House, supported by all political parties and given a commitment by the
government of the day for proclamation at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker, that was almost two years
ago. Just about two years ago today,
this bill was at committee stage of the Manitoba Legislative Assembly. It was two years ago minus several days,
March 8, 1990, to be exact, that Bill 91, legislation to curb the sale of
solvents among young people, was at committee stage where community groups and
concerned individuals made strong representation in support of this legislation
and where this government of the day, the Conservative government of Manitoba,
gave its stamp of approval, line by line, clause by clause, till the process
was over late in the day on March 13, and then on March 15 for third and final
reading.
Mr. Speaker, we rise today out of great
disappointment and sadness. This debate
is before us, this request for papers is before this House because a very
important piece of legislation, having received the support of all parties in
this Legislative Assembly, has been gathering dust while young children and
teenagers are growing sicker and sicker, day by day, as they become addicted to
the ghastly substances listed in this bill, because of the horrible life
circumstances that they find themselves in.
Mr. Speaker, the circumstances that have
led children and young people to turn to solvents like Lysol, like glue, like
paint thinner, like gasoline, like nail polish remover, have only grown worse
and worse with every day that has passed since March 15, 1990.
It is criminal, Mr. Speaker, for this
government to have allowed this legislation to gather dust when it could have
been at work helping children and young people not just in our inner city but
in communities throughout Winnipeg and in communities throughout Manitoba‑‑urban,
rural, northern, remote, reserve communities, everywhere. This bill, this act could have been at work
preserving the health of our young people and saving lives.
Mr. Speaker, we are left today with the
very few avenues available to members in the opposition to keep this matter
before the government and to show our outrage and concern at the criminal
negligence of this government in allowing this bill to gather dust when it
could have been at work for our communities and for our children. We did not say from Day One that this was
perfect legislation. We knew that there
would be problems. It would not be easy
to enforce, and it would not address the root causes of the problem this bill
attempts to address, but it was a step in the right direction.
It would have been making a difference
over the last couple of years, but for the failure of this government to
recognize its importance, but for the betrayal and broken promises and half
truths of this government over the last two years and more, but for the fact
that this government has allowed a bill of this importance, a law of this
magnitude to be mired down in bureaucratic red tape, caught up in legal
opinions, studied by reviews and committee, thrown to the wind and allowed to
die.
Mr. Speaker, there is no excuse for that
inaction. If there were problems we
would have identified them long ago, and we could have been working on
regulations or amendments to this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I remind all members in this
House that this bill went through all the proper steps of the Legislative
Assembly. It was reviewed by the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae). It was
studied by his department officials, and he came to the legislative process
with nothing but praise and support for this legislation. On March 1 the Minister of Justice says: We
have to have legislation like this. In a
matter like this there is all kinds of room for agreement amongst right‑thinking
and caring Manitobans, which I trust that all members of the House are.
An Honourable Member: Who said that?
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: That was the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae).
An Honourable Member: On the record.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: On the record.
An Honourable Member: He supports this bill.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Gave absolute support to Bill 91, and the
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and other members on that side of the House
sat through the committee hearings where the Winnipeg Police force came and
made pleas and urgent calls for passage of Bill 91 because they have no other
means, no other laws, no other regulations to deal with a sick, with a
troublesome and with a growing problem in communities throughout Winnipeg and,
indeed, throughout Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) will recall that we sat around that committee table and we seriously
considered each and every group and individual that made presentation, and in
fact we accepted amendments. We
discussed and perused and accepted amendments of the organizations that
appeared before us, in particular I think of the Winnipeg Police Department who
came to us with a number of very constructive suggestions which were
incorporated into the legislation and which gave the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) even more confidence that this was a good piece of legislation that
would be helpful in addressing a very serious problem in all of our
communities.
* (1710)
We have not only failed children and young
people of
We have failed future generations to
come. Solvent abuse is a growing and
serious problem in our society. The
sniffing of mind‑altering inhalants is unquestionably an escape for young
people from the harsh realities of hunger, poverty, abuse, broken homes and
prostitution. It is addictive, it is
harmful to health, and it is sometimes deadly.
We have tried in this Legislature, members
from all parties, to take our responsibilities seriously and to do what we can
to stop such a harmful and deadly problem.
We have been stopped dead in our tracks by an uncaring government who
has broken faith and broken word with the people of
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) is correct when he says he is under no obligation
according to the Rules of the House to provide legal opinions or advice
provided for the use of government.
There is nothing to stop this government from giving Manitobans and
giving all of us in this Legislature all of the information we need to
understand what the problems are and what the reasons for the delays are. They have chosen not to keep any of us in
this House, or the community workers who have fought tirelessly over two
decades for this kind of legislation, or the residents of our communities
everywhere in this province informed of the delay for this problem, the delay
in this legislation.
We will use every opportunity in this
Chamber to keep this matter before this government and to remind them of their
responsibilities for acting in the best interests of our children and young
people to secure a brighter and better future for this province. It is this kind of broken promise, this kind
of unexplained delay that contributes to the growing cynicism in the population
today.
People everywhere are wondering what we
are all doing here as legislators, as politicians, as political activists, as
cabinet ministers, when they see nothing but a trail of broken promises,
delays, unanswered questions, rhetoric, referral to reviews, establishment of
task forces, of wars on drugs, of expensive consultative processes without any
action.
Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I
will say again, Bill 91 may not be perfect.
There may be problems with enforcement, but it was our responsibility
and this government's obligation to have proclaimed Bill 91 within a reasonable
amount of time after passage through this House and to then determine the
effectiveness of that law and make changes accordingly. That was called for by every member in this
House; that was called for by the police in our communities; that was called
for by our community activists; that was called for by the concerned parents
and guardians of our children throughout the
I hope that this government will see fit,
come to its senses, take a little risk, if that is what it feels is involved,
proclaim Bill 91, and ensure that we have taken our responsibility seriously
and moved a little closer to ending a serious problem.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I take the opportunity to rise on this address, because I share many
of the concerns that the member for
Everyone in the House that sat here in the
minority government welcomed this piece of legislation. I think all of us, when we had an
opportunity, congratulated the member for
When this legislation was introduced,
there was the willingness on the part of all of us to see to it if we could
propose good legislation. I think that
there are backbenchers in all parties who would like to continue to present to
the House good legislation, which for one reason or another‑‑giving
the government the benefit of the doubt‑‑may not be at the top of
the government's priority list, but may be at the top of the priority list of
an individual member of this House. That
is what private members' bills and private members' hour is all about, that
each one of us, whether we are in cabinet or not in cabinet, have constituency
issues, have people issues that are of concern to us.
We want the opportunity as legislators,
elected in an equal way with every other legislator, to be able to bring forth
good and valid legislation and to know that good and valid legislation is going
to be seriously examined. There were a
number of bills in that session that I think were positive.
I remember Mark Minenko introducing one
with regard to handicapped parking. Last
year, we saw the government show its true colours, because rather than
proclaiming it and amending it, if they felt that there were amendments
necessary‑‑no‑‑they had to grandstand, and they had to
bring it in as their own piece of legislation.
They did not want to give Mr. Minenko the privilege of saying: This was my piece of legislation. I suspect that is exactly what they are
trying to do to the member for
Well, the tragedy about that is that the
government could proclaim that legislation tomorrow. If it was required to make amendments, I can
guarantee the instant support for reasonable amendments from my party to the
bill. I am sure the deputy leader of the
New Democratic Party can get approval from her caucus, that if it is necessary
to even fast‑track those amendments, if they are good and legitimate
amendments in order to get this thing effective in law, then we will do so because
the purpose here is surely not always partisan politics.
* (1720)
Surely, the purpose some days is to effect
better legislation for our children, and that is what the member for
We saw another example of the tyranny of
the majority last year with a bill that my party tried to introduce and tried
to have passed, in fact, did introduce, tried to have it passed‑‑the
salvation army act. We wanted to have an
amendment, requested not by us, but by an organization and the government
decided‑‑no, no, no‑‑could not happen, could not let
the Liberal Party introduce that piece of legislation, had to be the
Conservative Party that introduced that piece of legislation. So they allowed it to die on the Order Paper.
An Honourable Member: And it is back.
Mrs. Carstairs: And it is back. It is back because our member went to the
Salvation Army and said, look, if we introduce it, it is not going to get
through. By all means if you can get the
Conservative Party to introduce it, do it, because we are more interested in
you getting your needed legislation than we are in playing political, partisan
games. That is the difference between
the majority and the minority positions in this House. Tragically the bill that
they have chosen to do it with now is a bill which is in the interest of young
people.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about what this
bill wants to do. It wants to make it more difficult for young people to become
hooked on solvents. That is what the
bill is all about. We want to make sure
that businesses cannot indiscriminately sell this kind of material to young
people knowing that they are going to buy it, go behind the store and sniff
it. We want to have a piece of
legislation that, insomuch as it is possible to protect children, does. The member herself says it is not
perfect. No legislation is perfect. Nothing we do is going to guarantee that
every single child will never abuse solvents.
Nothing. We have to be prepared
to start. We have to be prepared as
adults to show some example, to say we will do everything as adults, as
lawmakers, to ensure that we have legislation which will prevent some young
people from abusing solvents.
It is not a difficult concept, Mr.
Speaker. It is really a very simple
concept, and yet on a simple concept we would allow partisanship to be the
order of the day. It is very sad. It is very sad for the member who is doing
her job, doing her function. It is very
sad for those of us who sat and voted for her piece of legislation, recognizing
that it was good and positive, and might indeed deter some children. It is, she said, a mark of an unfailing and
uncaring government. Well, it is more
than that, because you have to be uncaring not to proceed with this
legislation, and you have to be failing the people. You have to be putting narrow political
agendas before children, and that is what is so sad. That is what is tragic about this situation,
because you have put a narrow political agenda before our kids. Nothing is more important than our kids.
When I listen to people tell me‑‑Why
do you do this job; why do you take all of the abuse that goes along with being
a politician?‑‑well, I only have one answer. There is only one, and the answer to that,
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), is, you do it so that your children and your
grandchildren can have a better life.
That is why you do it, and some days it gets increasingly difficult to
convince yourself of that, but that is what we are here for. That is what I like to believe we are all
here for, and then when I see that kind of exhibition, I say, well, maybe some
of us are not here for that. Maybe some
of us are more interested in the games of politics than we are in the results
of politics.
So, Mr. Speaker, I want to go very clearly
on the record today and say that I think it is time for this government to
act. If they have some problems with the
bill, if they want to make amendments to that act, then I can assure them, from
my party, that they will be given very speedy amendments to that act. We have certainly passed amendments in the
past in jiffy time. Well, nothing, in my
opinion, should be put into place more quickly at this moment than this piece
of legislation, and I beg the government of the day to consider that very
carefully and to move on this and not to stymie this one moment longer.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to‑‑well,
I should not say that I am pleased to be able to be speaking to this bill,
because this bill should not even be before us today. It was supposed to be proclaimed quite some
time ago.
This is not a bill that we are debating
where NDP gets credit or Liberals get credit or Conservatives get credit. This is what the Leader of the Liberal Party
has just stated. This is a bill that
deals with children and the
So, Mr. Speaker, when you have promises
and statements that are recorded by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard), that
was in 1990, and now we are in 1992.
That was two years ago when he stated that the bill will be proclaimed
in January, and the question was, when in January? The answer was, between the 2nd and
31st. I guess the minister just forgot
to add the year to it. That was the only
difference.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about abusing
sniff and gasoline and petroleum, that is a serious problem. You would think that the Minister of Health
would be glad to address it, because it is not only a problem that the
individual child or youth has today. It is a serious health problem that we in
Mr. Speaker, I was at a few rallies and
pickets. What is happening, and I think
the government should be very, very aware of this, especially the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae)‑‑
An Honourable Member: Was Daryl Bean there?
Mr. Hickes: Well, I do not know if Daryl Bean was there,
but I wish the Minister of Justice was there, because he should have been
there, because what is happening is the grocery stores in the Point Douglas
area‑‑these pickets were organized and put on by the Point Douglas
Residents' Committee. A committee in the
area had to put together these pickets, because they are sick and tired of
these grocery stores selling abusive substances to individuals, to the children
and to the adults, who in turn are able, because their minds are altered, to
put the residents in a very dangerous position.
So, yes, the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), I wish he would have been
there to see for himself. You picket
those grocery stores, they take it off the shelf, and a month later they are
back again selling it. Is that
right? I say, no, because the people are
up in arms.
What is it going to take for this
government to proclaim something? Are we
going to start getting groups and organizations acting on their own, and we
have vigilante groups all over the place?
Is that what it is going to take?
I think we have gone beyond those stages. I do not think that something which is very
important as this Bill 91, which I might add, where the Minister of Justice
says jokingly, where is Daryl Bean, I do not think it is a joking matter. I will quote from the Minister of Justice‑‑
An Honourable Member: Why do you support the likes of Daryl Bean,
that is what I am wondering?
* (1730)
Mr. Hickes: I stated very clearly the other day, I do not
support Daryl Bean.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) is put into such an opportune moment where a lot of us people in
In February 6, 1990, the Justice Minister
said, "As I said, I have been working with the Honourable Member for St.
Johns (Ms. Wasylycia-Leis), who had the foresight to bring this matter
forward."
March 1, the Minister of Justice: ". . . we have to have legislation like
this . . . in a matter like this there is all kinds of room for agreement
amongst right thinking and caring Manitobans, which I trust that all Members of
this House are."
Today I ask you, are all members of this
House that caring and that trusting? If
you are, support this bill, put the pressure onto the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), proclaim this bill. We need it
today. We needed it yesterday. We cannot go on forever and ever until some
child or some person, either in
It is not just an issue that belongs to
Point Douglas or belongs to Kildonan, it is a problem right across
If we can have something that‑‑even
the police have come out and stated, if we could proclaim this bill, it would
give us an opportunity to act on behalf of the citizens of
There are a lot of seniors who live in
these areas. It is not even safe for
them to even go out for a nice summer stroll in the evening, when you have
people who are high on Lysol or sniffing glue, or what have you. The seniors who have worked all their lives
for some peace and quiet and relaxation and to enjoy life, they do not even
have that anymore.
It has passed through the House. All it needs is to be proclaimed.
I would just like to quote a little bit
more from the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), who is very supportive of it,
and I hope his feelings are still the same today. I really do because this is a very serious
issue, and we have to seriously address it and make sure that it is proclaimed.
He said, I moved that motion so that the
Department of Health and its minister, whom I have not had the opportunity to
consult with in recent days, can do the work necessary to ensure that those who
are in the business of distributing these things on a legal basis are made
aware of the new rules. I do give
commitment to the honourable member. I
will not go on because it is not a one‑party issue, and all honourable
members‑‑that here again this is a matter of some importance to us
as a government to bring some reasonable level of control with regard to
substance abuse.
That is your own government member making
those statements. I hope when I conclude that same government member will stand
up and say those same things again, because he has, like I said earlier, the
opportunity to have a second chance at it that a lot of us never get. Stand up, take your pats on the back. Get that bill proclaimed, and we will gladly
pat you on the back. It does not matter
who gets it done. It is the people of
The Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) had
no problems when it was first brought out.
When he was asked about when the bill will be proclaimed he said, in the
affirmative. When will the bill be
proclaimed? Soon. When was soon? January of 1990. In 1991, May 1, the Health minister at that
time said, amendments may not be necessary to deal with technical problems with
enforcement. Reading that statement, it
reads that the Health minister was very supportive of it. What happened? What happened in that process? What made the minister change his mind, and
what made the government change their mind?
I hope it is not the interest of profit versus the safety of our
children and our youth. I hope it is
not. Because no matter how much money
you are able to make or have, you can never ever replace a person's life, and
that is a fact.
We all in this House have family and
children, and if you saw some of those young youth that are high on sniff, and
if they ever came home and you saw that, I bet you would not hesitate for one
minute to be proclaiming this very, very serious, important bill. The bill is making sure that the youth under
18 do not have access to abusive substances because when you are young you are very
easily influenced, very, very easily influenced.
I have to commend, again, the Residents'
Committee from Point Douglas. They have
taken up the fight on their own because of the inaction of this
government. How many times do they have
to do that? I know the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer) has attended functions and stuff in the constituency of Point
Douglas. He has met a lot of people
there, you know. There are a lot of
excellent people there. They are asking
for the support of us as legislators.
They are not saying that you Liberals, you NDP, you Conservatives
proclaim this bill for us. They are
saying, we have had enough. Enough is
enough.
How long is it going to take? How long do we have to wait? We cannot
continue on. You go into some of the
communities right across
I heard her speak once at a school in St.
Vital, and she was very proud of that committee, war on drugs. Where is it?
What is going to happen to that?
That cost a lot of money, and a lot of people put a lot of time and
effort into that. Is it going to be
shelved like this to proclaim for another two years?
Governments and people have good
intentions. Those good intentions do not
mean beans if they are not carried through. People are tired and tired of
hearing talk, rhetoric from all governments‑‑not only this
government, from all governments. That is what we get right across
No wonder people are so cynical of
politicians. They are sick and tired of
that. They want action.
Today the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) came back from a meeting in
If the government is very sincere in
helping people in
I recently had a meeting with some
members, and I was very glad to see that the government is going to be
supporting that organization, at least in the interim. That was the group who came here from
An Honourable Member: Saint where?
Mr. Hickes:
They have their own little community
justice system‑‑their own little community where they appoint their
own judges, their own magistrates. The
elders are involved; chief and council are involved; the community is involved.
They, in turn, have saved the government a
lot of money by not having to fly in lawyers and magistrates and judges. You know, one of the things that struck me
and will remain with me forever, because I have been into a lot of isolated
communities and I have seen these problems where the individuals have sniffed a
lot of gas. In communities where you
have access to Ski‑Doos, and outboard motors and stuff like that, you do
get a lot of‑‑I would not say a lot of sniffing, but certain
individuals get addicted to gasoline sniffing.
It is not a pretty sight to see.
In this community of
The community, with their own little
justice system, dealt with it and dealt with that individual, and you know what
that committee told us. They said, we
now today have no problem, we do not even have a gas sniffer in our
community. That is exactly what they
said, and you were at those meetings. It
is because the community had to take action on its own. The community had to take the bull by the
horns and act on its own. Is that what
we have to do here? Is that what
Manitobans have to do, is stop relying on our governments, our rules and
regulations, our laws and start enforcing their own? I say no.
I say this is too important to leave it.
It is time that we proclaimed it.
It is long overdue, and I look forward to the support of the government
to have this happen for all Manitobans and our youth. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1740)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, it appears to me, honourable
members opposite are using this Order for Return and Address for Papers to
remind gently but firmly the government of their concerns with respect to the
abuse of various substances in our province.
While I appreciate the concern honourable members opposite are showing
and agree with that concern, I rise today to inform them that regardless of the
concerns they are expressing about legislation, the concerns they are
expressing about the problem are shared by honourable members on this side of
this House.
I listened to the honourable Leader of the
Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) talk about co‑operation and offering the
co‑operation of her and her colleagues in moving this kind of measure
along in order to make our province a safer place. As I listened to the honourable Leader of the
Liberal Party talking about co‑operation and working together, I was
reminded of the way things went back in 1990 when, at the time honourable
members are referring to, referred to some of my own comments. I see no reason for me to take issue with any
of those things that honourable members today are raising.
As a House leader in those days, I
operated to a large extent in dealing with private members' matters as Bill 91
was. I relied to a large extent on the
undertakings given to me by the sponsors of such initiatives. In this case, it was the honourable member
for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) who gave me undertakings as House
leader that, yes indeed, this Bill 91 would be effective in addressing a
problem that we all agreed was there and we all agreed required some kind of
addressing, that it would be effective, that it would be enforceable. I suppose if mistakes were made by myself in
those days, it was to believe honourable members opposite who gave me those
undertakings.
As honourable members will know, another
bill at that particular session dealt with handicapped parking, parking for
handicapped individuals, the disabled persons in our province. That bill was
sponsored by the then member for Seven Oaks, now known as Mark Minenko. I again made the mistake out of an abundance
of good will, and I have to acknowledge that‑‑of believing what the
honourable member Mark Minenko told me about what was in his bill and how
enforceable it was and how well it would work and how well he had consulted
with the community. I just assumed he
did that in the same way that we as a government consulted with various people
who would be interested in such legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I made a mistake. I believed the honourable member for Seven
Oaks, and I believed the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis),
who‑‑I am not suggesting anything about her credibility; I am just
saying she must have felt that her consultation and her research had been
adequate to back moving forward a bill.
I do not fault her for any of that because I say the honourable member
for
So do I believe those members of the Point
Douglas Residents' Committee and the honourable member for Point Douglas (Mr.
Hickes) and all honourable members when they tell of their good intentions with
regard to Bill 91 and the problem that we have before us. But let not the honourable member for Point
Douglas lecture this government on carrying through with good intentions. You know the party that he supports and has
supported has a record of its own which, I think, out of common courtesy and
respect for those listening to me today, I ought not to burden those listening
with a recitation of that particular, very sad and sorry record of lack of
achievement and failure. I am not going
to do that because we are talking about a problem that we all agree that needs
to be addressed.
The honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) spoke of not to worry about pats on the back and so on, and I do
not think that is what this debate is about really. I agree with the honourable member for Point
Douglas because, having the background that I have, I think I know a little bit
about this problem, as would others who experience these things in a first‑hand
way. You do not have to be in Point
This problem is more a problem in
That is why when the honourable member for
I do say, the honourable member, while she
may be annoyed with my saying that, I do not question her good faith or her
intentions at all. She is not a legal
expert any more than I was. I assumed
that she had the benefit of that kind of research. So Bill 91 then is the responsibility of this
government to proclaim. This government
is not going to proclaim something that is faulty and that therein is the
problem. Honourable members will allow government, I hope, to do its work and
to look closely‑‑
* (1750)
An Honourable Member: It is not faulty.
Mr. McCrae: Well, the honourable member for Transcona (Mr.
Reid) wants to get involved in the debate.
I assume he is going to do that next, but maybe he would be courteous
enough to allow me to finish my comments before he gets into the debate,
because I am nearly finished. If he
would be patient, then I will finish my comments and yield the floor to
him. I may not even take my full time.
I think I am wrong, maybe the honourable
member for Transcona is not going to be patient and wait. If that is the case, I may just have to raise
my voice so that he and other honourable members can hear me as he chatters
away from his seat.
I can tell honourable members the issues
that I have raised in my comments are being addressed by the Department of
Justice and the Department of Health.
The honourable member knows the history of this kind of legislation just
as well as I do. It has had a rocky
history when it was the law of the land in this particular city and there were
difficulties with that kind of legislation.
The honourable member ought not assume that the government's concerns
about this matter have subsided, because they have not.
You know, I do not want to take any
lessons from the honourable member for
Since coming into office, I know why the
Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party never bothered to proclaim the
freedom of information act. You should
see all the stuff that crawled out under the rock from the previous government
when we did come into office in this province.
I know why she did not proclaim freedom of information for over three
and a half years and had to leave it for this government to proclaim it.
The honourable member for
I ask honourable members for their
forbearance in this matter, but certainly remind them that as a parent and
speaking to parents and people who care about children in this province, I am
sure you will not question the sincerity of the government in regard to the
substance abuse.
This government understands very well the
economic and the social problems that are brought about by people ruining their
lives by abusing substances, how they do not know they are ruining their lives,
but that is precisely what they are doing. You think we do not know that.
There seems to be some hint in some of the
comments coming from across the floor.
Those are just nothing more than cheap shots and not really needed in a
debate like this, because all honourable members in this House feel the same
way about this issue and want to see these issues addressed.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I am pleased to rise to take part in the
debate on Address for Papers. First of
all, because proclamation is long overdue and we, on this side, are hoping that
by debating the nonproclamation of Bill 91, that perhaps we will have an
influence on the government and they will get on with it and do what they
should be doing. Secondly, I was the
chairperson of the antisniff coalition incorporated and was very involved in this
issue as part of my job at North End Community Ministry.
I went through my files from the antisniff
coalition and pulled out some newspaper articles going back to 1976, so we know
that there is nothing new about this problem.
It has been going on for a long, long time. For example, March 1, 1976, in the Free
Press: Street aid is needed,
agency. It is talking about glue
sniffers. Teachers handed sniffing
problem because better for job than MDs; and Martians in supercars appear when
boys sniff: Two more articles from March
12, 1976. July 1980: Pickets protest
sale of intoxicants. September
1980: Despite flaws, by‑law wise,
only a fool would laugh at efforts to tackle glue sniffing, Winnipeg Free
Press.
I have a page from the House of Commons
debates, February 11, 1985, when Bill Blaikie, the member for Winnipeg‑Bird's
Hill, had a speech on dangerous products and solvent sniffing deaths in
We know that this problem has been going
on for a long, long time and groups have been working on it for a long
time. The antisniff coalition, for
example, in its by‑laws, their goals were to prevent solvent abuse, to
stop kids from sniffing, to assist families who have a sniffing problem, to
educate the community about solvent abuse, to prevent the indiscriminate sale
and distribution of solvents to children, to co‑ordinate and obtain
resources to help sniffers, to help parents and agencies organize to deal with
solvent abuse in the community.
I was part of those monthly meetings that
went on for month after month and year after year, as residents of the inner
city and staff of social and church agencies worked together to try to do
something about the problems. We tried
to get the Alcoholism Foundation of Manitoba to set up treatment programs for
children. We tried to get money from the
Core Area Initiative to provide a safe house for sniffers. In that regard we were unsuccessful, but we
were successful in getting
The coalition tried picketing store owners
and picketing stores to try and discourage them from selling sniff products,
but that was not successful. The
antisniff coalition proposed a city by‑law and lobbied City Council and
they were successful. They got a by‑law through the City of
It was the large chain stores that
appealed the city by‑law and they were successful. It is interesting to know that when the by‑law
was being drafted, it did not criminalize children or youth. We did not want to penalize children in any
way. The purpose of the bill was to
penalize the sellers and the marketers, or to restrict the sale of sniffable
products to minors. I think that is an
important consideration, that the user is not to be criminalized, but the
restrictions be placed on the sellers, on the retailers.
It is unfortunate that city by‑law
was struck down, and we are very fortunate, perhaps because of minority
government, perhaps because of the co‑operativeness of the Minister of
Justice (Mr. McCrae) as he alleges, that the antisniff bill, as it is known, of
the member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis) was approved by the
provincial Legislature.
During I think it was 1983 or 1984 there
was a national conference on sniffing and similar problems held at the Fort
Garry Hotel in
The results were quite interesting. I was looking at studies in
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable member for Burrows will have eight minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., the House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).