LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday, March 2, 1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present
the petition of W. Harding, Nathan
Horton, J. Sanderson and others,
requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider exempting the child tax benefit from
provincial income support programs,
particularly daycare subsidies.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present
the petition of Wilma Moar, Stacy
Roteliuk, Cindy Lewis and others,
requesting the Minister responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) consider implementing no‑fault auto
insurance, capping commissions and bringing
in other recommendations of the Kopstein
report that the government has delayed acting on.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon.
James Downey (Minister responsible for A.E. McKenzie Co.
Ltd.): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the A.E. McKenzie Co.
Ltd. Annual Report for 1992.
Hon.
Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, it
is my pleasure to table today the 1990 and 1991 Annual Report of the Manitoba
Labour Management Review Committee, as well as the 1991‑92 Annual Report
of the Manitoba Labour Board.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 14‑The Personal Property Security and
Consequential Amendments Act
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I move for leave to introduce Bill 14, The Personal Property
Security and Consequential Amendments Act, for the first time.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Justice
have leave?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No. Leave is denied.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention
of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon,
from the
Also this afternoon, we have, from
the
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
*
(1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Untendered Contracts
Government Position
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, members of the government told us that they are making
tough choices in these tough economic times. Some of their tough choices
have been to cut wages for civil servants, reduce education funding, centralize
and reduce hospital services for our children and slash social assistance
benefits for thousands of people in the city of Winnipeg.
Will the Premier today tell us what
part untendered contracts and private consultants have to play in these tough
choices, and will the Premier be reducing his government's reliance on private
consultants?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, beginning with the
preamble of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I might say that she might
want to consult The Globe and Mail article today that talks about three New
Democratic Premiers who, in office, do not have the luxury of being
irresponsible and just demanding that governments spend more money and tax more
away from its taxpayers but in fact talk about the tough choices they are
having to make.
Of course, I know that the Deputy
Leader of the Opposition knows that in Saskatchewan even last year, when we
were giving increases to our schools and our hospitals, Saskatchewan was
cutting back on their transfers to schools and hospitals and that they are
intending perhaps to have to do even more, according to Premier Romanow this
year, where in fact those provinces are talking about how bad it is for the
economy to have deficits increase and how they must be committed to keeping the
deficit down, Mr. Speaker. I know that she does not have to be
responsible, and I know that is why her Leader was not included in that
discussion because, of course, they were looking for people with a sense of
responsibility to the taxpayer.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I
would say that we as a government will seek all of the advice that we possibly
can that will be relevant to us trying to solve the difficult problems that we
are facing as a result of revenues that are not increasing as rapidly as we
would like and a commitment that we would like to keep to the taxpayers of
Manitoba to keep their taxes down.
As it was indicated in the front
page of yesterday's paper, that means $244 in the pockets in disposable income
to every Manitoba taxpayer because we have done that job, because we have kept
the taxes down because we are committed to protecting the taxpayer of Manitoba.
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not
address the serious nature of our question pertaining to this government's
reliance on private consultants in these tough economic times.
Health Care System Reform
APM Consultants Contract
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): I
would like to ask the Premier if he will tell the House and all the people of
Manitoba why his government is entering into a contract with Dr. Connie Curran
and APM Consultants, an American consulting firm? Why is he entering into
such a contract if, according to Dr. Curran's February 5 letter, it will cost
Manitobans as much as $6 million, based on her estimates, Mr. Speaker, of cuts
from St. Boniface Hospital and Health Sciences Centre of $45 million to $65
million and based on her typical 10 percent return or cut?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me deal with some of the essential background to the discussions that my
ministry is currently under with APM Consultants to see if we can conclude an
agreement which I want to tell you, so that my honourable friend has no
illusions as to the benefit to the health care delivery in Manitoba. This
contract is very much endorsed by Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface in an
attempt for them to be able to manage their resources with one end goal as the
result‑‑better patient care, Sir.
Now, Mr. Speaker, last time my
honourable friend was asked to comment, I believe my honourable friend was
concerned about quality patient care. The last time I believe my
honourable friend spoke on the issue, my honourable friend decried
inappropriate use of resources in the health care system. The last time
my honourable friend brought this issue up, she wanted to know how we were
introduced to Dr. Connie Curran, and I informed her that nurses of
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised the
Premier did not want to get up on this issue.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I
assumed that the member for
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable First
Minister does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we addressed this
question to the Premier because we want to know how this government can justify
hiring an American consultant that will cost taxpayers up to $6 million.
Government Commitment
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Let
me ask then since it appears now that the Minister of Health is answering for
the government on this issue, I want to ask this government since this
correspondence of February 5 points to a number of system‑wide
demonstration projects by Dr. Connie Curran that were to be in place yesterday
March 1: Will this government now admit that they have no plans and have
had no plans in place for real comprehensive health care reform before now and
that it is now enlisting a $6‑million consultant to make cuts in place of
real reform?
*
(1340)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend has in fact answered the question by her reference to a
February 5 commitment of deliverables in terms of the consultant's proposal
that would be undertaken in
The experts to whom we pay very
substantial amounts of money to administer our two teaching hospitals have
investigated the expertise available in
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to deal
with my honourable friend's concerns as we move this contract hopefully to a
conclusion which will benefit‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Health Care System Reform
APM Consultants Contract
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the
Minister of Finance as the president of the Treasury Board.
Can the Minister of Finance confirm
the Treasury Board has approved the contract to Connie Curran and/or APM
Associates that will take a percentage of 10 percent and/or $4.5 million to
$6.5 million based on cost cuts to the Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface
Hospital of $45 million to $65 million?
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): No, Mr. Speaker,
I cannot acknowledge that as fact.
Health Care System Reform
APM Consultants Contract
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my next supplementary
question is to the Premier, since the Premier wants to speak from his seat on
this.
Can the Premier advise this House if
the bringing in of the consultant one year after the minister announced an
action plan that was supposedly the greatest in Canada, according to the
minister's own words, the greatest in the Dominion of Canada, can the Premier
confirm that bringing in a consultant who will charge up to $6 million to
implement the plan one year after it is announced is an admission that the plan
itself is in chaos?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, since the Chairman of
the Treasury Board has said that the preamble to the question is not factual,
then obviously it would be inappropriate to consider the question based on an
unfactual‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Mr.
Chomiak: The minister said he would acknowledge or
not acknowledge, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable
member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr.
Filmon: Given the lack of credibility of the
member for Kildonan on this and most other issues, Mr. Speaker, it would be
inappropriate for me to answer the question.
Health Care System Reform
APM Consultants Contract
Mr.
Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, my final
supplementary to the Premier on this presentation that went to Treasury Board
by Connie Curran, can the Premier or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness)
confirm that Ms. Curran or APM Associates will pocket 10 percent of every
single dollar that she saves? In other words, if a nurse at $30,000 is
cut, she pockets $3,000 or 10 percent of every bed cut and every nurse cut and
every person cut in the health care system.
*
(1345)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let
me indicate to my honourable friend that when we conclude negotiations with APM
Consultants and presuming that those negotiations are satisfactory to ourselves
as the ministry and to the two hospitals which are involved in this, namely
Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, it is only then that we will be
seeking Treasury Board approval for a contract yet to be finalized.
Mr. Speaker, I will be more than
pleased to discuss the details, including the cost of that contract, with my
honourable friend, the New Democrats and the citizens of Manitoba when we
conclude that contract and providing we find it to be a reasonable approach at
reasonable cost with definite advantages and end goals to the betterment of
health care in Manitoba, Sir.
Health Care System Reform
Consultations
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier.
This morning, on radio, the Minister
of Health (Mr. Orchard) said that the health reform plan was not his but was
based on extensive consultation. That is the basis upon which health
reform should indeed take place, extensive consultation.
The Liberal caucus has spent the
last month meeting with health care professionals and consumers to dialogue
with them about the reform package, of which we have been very supportive.
Unfortunately, we keep getting a common complaint, and that complaint is that
there is not the kind of disclosure or consultation. One phrase was used
over and over again. They kept referring to it as a reform plan by
overhead projections.
Mr. Speaker, this is very
serious. Will the Premier tell this House when, as a government, they are
going to go public and lay before the people of this province their step‑by‑step
initiative on the health care reform?
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, you see, the preamble
to the question demonstrates how people can either deliberately or casually
misconstrue something. The Leader of the Liberal Party has referred to
the fact that on radio this morning he referred to the health reform
plan. In fact, I listened to the entire interview, and it was to do with
the mental health program. [interjection]
Well, wait a second. Get your facts straight. They were talking
about one element, and his consultations were to do with that element. He
named specific people who were involved in the consultations, doctors' names,
various people's names.
Mr. Speaker, when you try and take
the discussion of one small element and you try and parlay it into an entire
plan, you misconstrue and misrepresent what the whole issue is about. I
will invite the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to talk specifically about the
question.
Mental Health Care System Reform
Consultations
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): If
the Premier wants me to deal specifically with the mental health reform
package, then I will prepare to do so. The mental health reform package
was supposed to also be based, as was its overall component, the health reform
package, on consultation, yet the mental health community is telling the
minister not to put additional dollars into the Salvation Army program because
they do not like the location, they do not feel safe about that location.
They want safe houses, but they want them in what they decry to be safe
locations.
If there is in fact this kind of
consultation, why is the minister going against his own staff and the consumers
of mental health services by making a decision they do not want?
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of
Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend the Liberal Leader indicated
that she heard me on the radio this morning speaking about the health reform
process. That has been corrected. It was specifically around mental
health reform, a process, Sir, under which professionals in varying
disciplines, plus consumers of mental health services and their families,
administrators of programs across the length and breadth of Manitoba, for the
first time, have had the input into how we shift our mental health services
from institutional to community‑based care, a project, an initiative, a
policy that was recommended for 20 years to varying governments and Ministers of
Health and unacted upon.
It has taken four years of
consultation by psychiatrists, physicians, social workers, registered
psychiatric nurses and other mental health care professionals, consumers,
families and administrators to develop the plan to where we believe it has
integrity and has support of advisory committees involving those individuals.
My honourable friend the Liberal
Leader says this is health reform by overhead projection. Mr. Speaker,
you know what my honourable friend is referring to. My honourable friend
is referring to probably 150 meetings that senior management of the ministry of
Health and I have used to explain the process of mental health reform
throughout the length and breadth of
*
(1350)
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, if we are going to reform the
health care system, and reform it does indeed need, then we are going to have
to have the co‑operation of all of the players. Many of these players
feel that they are being told what is going to happen; they are not being
consulted with.
What is this minister going to do to
solve the misconception, if that is what it is out there, that there is not
genuine consulting taking place? He may believe that he is consulting.
The reality is the people we talk to do not believe they are being consulted
with. There is a conflict. How is he going to resolve that
conflict?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, we are going to resolve my
honourable friend's problem by continuing with the same kind of process of
information meetings, of presentations by senior management within the ministry
of Health and myself and others to visit almost every corner of the province of
Manitoba to meet with nursing staff, support staff, hospital boards, doctors,
patients, community groups, citizens at large and explain the process of health
care reform. We will stay by that process even though my honourable
friend seems to think it is inappropriate, if I judge by her question and the
feedback she got from the people with whom she and her party consulted.
Mr. Speaker, let me tell my
honourable friend, one of the difficulties there is in health care reform, when
all you hear is leaders, of for instance the MNU, saying that there are only
bed closures and layoffs at Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface, without
mentioning the new jobs, the employment of 60 beds commissioned at Concordia
Hospital and new beds at municipals and Deer Lodge. Of course, you only
hear one side of the reform equation, and it is only half the information
necessary for the citizens of
Multiple Personality Disorder
Treatment Availability
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I have a letter I
would like to table from Theresa Unger, from
Mr. Speaker, Theresa is a victim of
child abuse. She was diagnosed with multiple personality disorder four
years ago, and the last four years have been a nightmare for her. She has
been referred to Selkirk, where there is no treatment program available.
She has been told that the diagnosis that she has, the condition that she has,
is not even recognized by many in the health system. Her doctor has
attempted to have her referred to
That has been rejected, and for the
last eight weeks, she was in the hospital in Thompson, Mr. Speaker, [interjection] and I realize it is a
lengthy preamble. I met with her for an hour and a half on Sunday, and I
think it is important that members of the House understand the situation she is
in. She sat in the hospital for eight weeks, and she is desperately
looking for assistance for treatment.
I would like to ask the Minister of
Health: What action will he take to ensure that treatment is available,
not only for Theresa Unger, but for the many other Manitobans who suffer from
multiple personality disorder, Mr. Speaker?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, in
case my honourable friend does not have it, I wish to have him avail himself of
a copy of a letter I sent to Dr. Chernick on behalf of this individual. I
beg my honourable friend to read this, because I want to tell my honourable
friend that there was a significant lack of good information around this
patient's ability to access service.
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend is
under the impression that that service would be available only to this
individual at the Selkirk Mental Health Centre. That is not correct,
Sir. My honourable friend should know that there is an opportunity for
this individual to receive consultation, support from professionals within the
Now, Mr. Speaker, as Minister of
Health, I cannot refer this patient to any physician. Physicians do that,
and physicians have the ability to refer this patient to the appropriate
medical consultation, if that were the appropriate route in the city of
Winnipeg, and that, Sir, is what my letter explains to Dr. Chernick, because
there was an impression inadvertently, and I do not know the genesis of it,
that this individual could only be referred to Selkirk. That was not
accurate, and my letter to Dr. Chernick, on behalf of this individual,
clarifies that.
*
(1355)
Mr.
Ashton: Mr. Speaker, it is only since Theresa has
gone public with these concerns that this information, this response, has come
from the minister. I have lso copies of correspondence that have been
sent to the family physician rejecting some of the options they have presented
to the department.
I have a further question, Mr.
Speaker. Will the minister ensure that there are some real clear
directions given on MPD at the community level, and will the minister also
ensure that people who live in communities such as Thompson, if psychiatric
care is not available, will be able, under medicare and under the Northern
Patient Transportation Program, be able to access other services?
In this case, a psychologist has
been identified in
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, you know, I realize my
honourable friend is wanting to try to make a political issue out of this
individual's circumstances, and I regret that, because I want to share with my
honourable friend the letter from Dr. Chernick.
It was dated January 30, 1993.
We investigated the allegations in this letter which says: We have in the
interim tried to get her to be seen by the various psychiatrists in
That is wrong, Sir. That is
why, in my reply which I give my honourable friend‑‑and I believe
it was dated February 26‑‑I indicated that Dr. Chernick can refer
this individual for the appropriate consultations, psychiatrist, medical
doctor, otherwise, in the city of
Mr.
Ashton: Mr. Speaker, this is typical, the
response from the minister. I quite frankly am fed up. I am here on
the request of the individual. I met with her an hour and a half on
Sunday, and I am sick and tired of the kind of arrogant responses we are
getting from the minister.
I asked a very straightforward
question, Mr. Speaker. If the minister does not understand one of the
problems‑‑and it comes even in letters from his own department, Dr.
Cook, to the family physician, the problem is that one psychiatrist who has
dealt with this condition no longer lives in
I ask, would he allow Theresa Unger
to be able to come to
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the answer I
have been giving my honourable friend, but of course my honourable friend is
not satisfied with that because he wants to make a political issue of it.
Mr. Speaker, I received a letter
from Dr. Chernick on January 30. I replied by February 26. I want
to inform all honourable friends that the great caring, concerned member for
Thompson wrote to me on February 19, and my office received it some time when
my reply was going back resolving the case.
Point of Order
Mr.
Ashton: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Premier
(Mr. Filmon), from his seat, said that I had no integrity at all. If the
Premier would care to meet directly with Theresa Unger, he would find that she
asked that this matter be made public. I met with her an hour and a half
on Sunday, and one of the reasons I did not write‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The Chair did not
hear the comment. The honourable member does not have a point of order.
We will get to the honourable member for Radisson now.
*
(1400)
Addendum
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, drinking
water and protecting the quality of drinking water are health issues that are
of concern to all Manitobans‑‑
Some
Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. We have discussed
this issue. The honourable member for Thompson has put his
questions. I believe the honourable member for Thompson has got his
answers. Now the honourable member for Radisson has the floor.
The honourable member for Radisson,
kindly put your question now, please.
Ms.
Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I was talking about how
drinking water and issues of protecting water quality are health concerns for
all Manitobans. We have environmental assessment procedures in place to
assess developments to ensure that public health is not going to be jeopardized
by projects in
With that in mind, I would like to
ask the Minister of Environment, regarding the
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I am not sure that as the ultimate licensee of any project, it is my
job to respond on behalf of the proponents as to why they made the changes,
but, frankly, when the member talks about the protection of drinking water and
public health, it seems to me that as I recall, those amendments that were
brought forward had to deal with treating water and making it potable before it
was put into a pipeline. I am not sure where her question is leading.
Federal Environmental Review
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker,
given that we have seen how cleverly this government can manipulate
environmental assessment procedures, after what they have done with the office
building at Oak Hammock Marsh and given that this project‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Question, please.
Ms.
Cerilli: This project should have a federal‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Ms.
Cerilli: My question for the Environment minister
is: How can this project not have a federal review when it has at least
three criteria which will trigger a federal review? We have had concerns
raised by the‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member
has put her question.
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr.
Speaker, the
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the
member and assure the public that the process we have embarked upon is full and
complete and will deal with all aspects of the project. One need not be
concerned about the addendum, because it has in fact amounted to an extension
of time for the proponents and the opponents to make their views known, and
those will all appear in front of the commission.
Ms.
Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, given that the mayor of
Mr.
Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I am flattered that the
member opposite thinks that I have been clever. That is not usually the
way in which she refers to me. I hope that is held by the rest of her
caucus.
Mr. Speaker, very seriously, it is our
intention to make this an in‑depth and full assessment by the proper
authorities going in front of the Clean Environment Commission.
In terms of response to the mayor of
Sunday Shopping
Public Hearings‑Rural
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): My question is to the Minister of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
When this government unilaterally
introduced Sunday shopping, there were many on this side and many in rural
Mr. Speaker, in the
Mr.
Speaker: Question, please.
Mr.
Storie: That is the root of the problem. Mr.
Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
This government promised to consult
with rural Manitobans. Can he tell us now when the standing committee that is
going to deal with Bill 4 will be called and whether that committee will be
allowed to travel to rural Manitoba, where the implications of this bill are
going to be felt most directly?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
It is expected that the committee responsible will be called very shortly.
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Speaker, the Legislature adjourned more than
two months ago. During that time, there have been no hearings.
My question to the Minister of Rural
Development (Mr. Derkach) or the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism
is: Will there be hearings held across rural
Mr.
Stefanson: Not unlike all kinds of legislation that
is dealt with by this House, the normal process will be followed in this case.
Mr.
Storie: Any rural
Economic Impact
Analysis
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): My final question to the Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism is: Has the department begun the economic
analysis that it promised to undertake about the impact of this legislation,
and who is doing that analysis?
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
The department is doing an ongoing analysis of various aspects of Sunday
shopping in terms of the economic impact, in terms of consumer reaction and so
on. That all will form part of the ultimate decision of whether or not
this pilot project, running until April 4, 1993, is in fact extended or
terminated.
Health Care Profession
Labour Adjustment Strategy
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
We have great concerns about the
manner in which this government has been treating health care professionals
throughout the
My question to the minister
is: Has the minister developed a labour adjustment strategy that does
more than match names to vacancies?
*
(1410)
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): The Labour
Adjustment Committee‑‑I will stand to be corrected, but I believe
there is representation of 11 unions on the Labour Adjustment Committee
involved in health care reform.
That Labour Adjustment Committee,
Sir, I believe has been operational since approximately November of last year
and has been assisting in the shifts of staff and professional expertise from,
in this instance, the two teaching hospitals to employment opportunities which
are the other side of the initiation of closing beds at St. Boniface and Health
Sciences Centre by opening beds at Concordia, Deer Lodge and municipals.
Now, Mr. Speaker, that process is
one in which, I think, we have received gratefully a substantial amount of
support from the union membership. Indeed, I believe that we have a
financial commitment from the federal government in terms of the ministry, I
believe it is immigration and training, to assist in terms of some retraining
costs and other costs of the operation of this labour adjustment committee.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health has a
wonderful way of evading the answering of questions.
Mr. Speaker, what is this minister
doing to have a labour adjustment strategy within the health care
professionals? Start treating our health care providers as professionals‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member
has put his question.
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I regret that this may be yet
another plank in my honourable friend's leadership campaign, where it is not
appropriate for government to work with the unions to provide laid‑off
staff with employment opportunities when the system has them, because that is
what I sort of thought the labour adjustment committee, and I think that is
what the union membership sort of believed, was an end goal. My
honourable friend obviously finds that offensive. I think he is alone in
that analysis that that is not a real and a necessary adjustment.
Mr. Speaker, let us talk about a
number of other strategies which are also part of health care reform, and that
is that I believe, if my honourable friend were to check, he would find that a
number of our diploma nursing courses, for instance, have provided space for
LPNs who wish to upgrade. That is yet another part of the strategy.
I hope my honourable friend does not disagree with that.
Nurse's Aide Program
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Can the Minister of Education tell
the House why additional nurse's aides are being trained at
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
know that my honourable friend is concerned about this issue, or else he would
not be posing the question, but surely my honourable friend is not equating the
skills training of nurse's aides with registered nurses and with LPNs because,
Sir, there are differing skills training and service delivery opportunities of
those three professional disciplines in health care.
There is no question that right now
a number of facilities are hiring additional nurse's aides, and I think that
additional training would be appropriate if there is a need in the workplace
for those additional trained aide positions. Surely again, my honourable
friend is not saying we should not undertake that training when the facilities
are hiring aides.
Mr.
Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, might I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Justice
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement?
[agreed]
Mr.
McCrae: I thank my honourable colleagues, Mr.
Speaker, and take this opportunity to draw attention to an extremely important
event taking place this week in the city of
I refer, of course, to the Scott
Tournament of Hearts, the premier event in Canadian women's curling
competition.
Obviously, reference needs to be
made to the Scott Paper Company, but also to those many organizers and
countless volunteers who are working so hard to make this a tremendous success
for all of the competitors who come to Brandon from right across Canada and to
make this a tremendous success for all those right across Canada and elsewhere
who are taking quite an interest in the Scott Tournament of Hearts in Brandon.
It is an interesting year at the
Scott Tournament of Hearts because we have two
We wish all the competitors well in
this extremely class act that is being carried out in
I might say that the Scott
Tournament of Hearts is one of a number of important national and international
competitions that have been and will be held in the city of
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for Brandon
East have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr.
Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I would like to
join with my colleague the MLA for Brandon West, the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) in congratulating everyone in
Curling is one of my favourite
games. It is one of the best games in the world. I want to extend
personal congratulations to the strong Westman team that we have: Maureen
Bonar, Mrs. Fowler and daughter and Allison Bell, and say that I agree 100
percent with the minister that the community of Brandon has had a very
successful track record in sponsoring major national and international
events: World Youth Baseball, winter games and more to come.
I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, if
I might, I am very proud of the fact that back in '69 and '70, I was part of
the government that put the money in place to set it to establish the Keystone
Centre.
I appreciate it has been expanded
since, which is good, but I am glad that the people who were involved in
establishing the Keystone Centre in the first place had the wisdom to provide a
facility that has enabled this type of sporting event to take place.
Certainly all of us look forward to
good things happening in the Keystone Centre in the future.
Again, my congratulations to
everyone involved in this.
Mr.
Speaker: Does the honourable member for St. James
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I want to join with my
colleagues who are actually from
An
Honourable Member: To hang around the courthouse.
Mr.
Edwards: I hang around the courthouse. That
is right.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to simply
join comments with my colleagues the members from Brandon East and Brandon West
in congratulating
I had the opportunity back when they
hosted the World Youth Baseball to also have some exposure to the skills of the
people of
I wish them well in their future
endeavours to secure future events of this sort, because I am sure that they
will get them in the future, given their past record of achievement.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Committee Changes
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by
the member for
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the composition of the
Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as
follows: the member for Arthur‑Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member
for Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld), the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the
member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns). [agreed]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, would you call Debate on Second Readings, the bills in this order Nos.
6, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12 and 13.
*
(1420)
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 6‑The Real Property Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill 6, The Real Property Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Ms.
Becky Barrett (
As the Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae) in his presenting this bill for second reading spoke, it appears from
the amendments that are being put forward to The Real Property Act that they
are by and large housekeeping amendments, that they are amendments designed to
bring the act in line with current computerization that is being undertaken in
the department and to clarify some other specific concerns that have been
raised through the workings of this act.
There are, however, a couple of
points. This is one of the reasons why we are prepared to send this to
public hearings, is that there are, in particular, two areas of this bill that
we want additional clarification on.
The first one of these is the
question of having a creditor having to check more carefully before registering
a judgment. This appears to be a fairly positive clarification. My
understanding is that is so that people who actually own the land are not being
asked to have debts that were assigned to someone who earlier owned it, the responsibility
for that. I think that is important to be clarified. The role of
the district registrar in this process, too, we will ask for further
clarification.
The one that I also have some
concerns about is the amendment that will eliminate the requiring of a notary
witnessing a land title be a Canadian notary. I am unclear, as we discuss
this particular element of this bill, what the reasoning behind this amendment
is. So we will have some potential concerns on these two issues, but by
and large feel that it is a necessary set of amendments with those two areas of
concern that we have.
We are prepared, at this point, to
allow this bill to go to public hearings. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member for St. James, if
you are standing to adjourn, leave has already been granted for the member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) that this matter remain standing.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment
Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 2, The Endangered Species
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de disparition,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Mr.
Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to
make a few comments on the amendments proposed by our Natural Resources
minister on The Endangered Species Act.
I can relate somewhat with the minister
on the amendments to the act as far as his comments, in reference to say that
he takes pride. It certainly places the province in the forefront for
concern for endangered species.
I would also like to make some
comments on the minister's statements as to saying that some of these
amendments are minor. Understandably, the minister, in his wisdom, and his
staff have decided to conform with the language that has been brought to the
federal legislation in dealing with that and proposing amendments to the act to
deal with it. I would say the minister and his staff have done what
perhaps they should have done at the initial presentation of this act.
However, Mr. Speaker, having said
that, and in light of the act being relatively new and with different concerns
arising and whatnot with our endangered species and the act itself, I can well
realize and appreciate that at times things have to be brought forth and
changed.
*
(1430)
Mr. Speaker, I would say some of the
problems that we may have here are, again, when we are dealing with the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and really with any minister where we
have the fact that a minister is given specific powers. I believe in my
last comments to The Endangered Species Act, when it was presented in 1990, I
had indicated that there was always concern with the minister's authority, I
should say, to be able to have such power to make decisions, whether it be on
endangered species or whether it be on any of the species, wildlife and floral,
that we do have in this province.
Mr. Speaker, in going over the act
and the changes, I see no problems in the word changes or that additional
wordings are going to indicate any threat to our wildlife whatsoever, and I
will coincide with the minister in saying again that the terms are better and
more specific to the actual status and the status of habitat of what specific
species are included.
The old act, as I had indicated,
showed a sense of being too general and too open, and the ability to be able to
deal with the act in certain ways did not seem to conform with what this
minister and what direction this government wants to take as far as wildlife
and as far as endangered species.
I want to make some short comments
on the minister's reaction when he presented this bill in December of
'92. I want to assure honourable members that I again have been advised
by professional staff that on occasion, endangered species, and it has happened
just in the last little while, were injured and indeed care was provided, but
technically, that was contravening the act, because the act before, Mr.
Speaker, prohibited the handling and care of such species that are on the
endangered list.
The minister says, well, we want to
assure the honourable members that this will not happen and that under certain
conditions, the species will be handled or taken care of with all due respect
and reason of life.
I would think that one of the
changes that we are dealing with here‑‑and change No. 2 as the
minister has indicated, the redefined and added terms described in change one
are substituted for existing mid‑use terms whenever they occur in the
existing act.
Mr. Speaker, this change could, in
fact, become somewhat controversial because we never know. Changes in the
act itself might just open up the door for abuse in certain circumstances when
it deals with endangered species or when it deals with any wildlife or any
flora endangered species that we, here in
So I would think that the minister,
with the amendment and with his staff, would in fact monitor closely the
changes that they have implemented in the amendments and make sure that there
is no abuse when it comes to endangering or the handling or the killing or the
entrapment or enhancement of the species that are being taken care of.
I do have a problem with that, and I
always have felt and have spoken with the minister on some of his acts and
amendments to the acts that he has put through, that if he feels he should have
the power to be able to issue permits or the power to put forth some problem
that we have with endangered species, that he is careful in who he issues these
permits to, that he is careful and monitors how the people that he feels are
responsible to take care of this are going to be monitored and made sure that
they are doing what is necessary to assist and to make sure that we do not come
across problems where people will abuse the system and take on and say, well,
this certain species is threatened, this certain species is hurt. We have
to make sure that the minister and his staff are well aware of whether the
species itself that they are dealing with at the time is handled with the
utmost respect and care and not just taken upon and saying, well, here we have
a certain endangered species that has a broken leg and we feel that we should
just get rid of it.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
I would think that is not where the
minister himself is really coming from with this amendment, but it does have
the door open for such a circumstance to occur. We hope the chances of
such an occurrence would be relatively small and not happening. I would think
that in fact it could happen. The minister does have to make sure that
staff and he, himself, are aware of the circumstances relating to the specific
species that may come in question.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the ability in
the act and the ability we have that the minister is offering for people to
obtain a permit to kill a threatened or endangered species is a different
aspect of what presently exists, because now in the act species must be only
held alive. So the amendment to this act is going to give the ability for
people to go to the minister again, and the minister within his wisdom and his
power is going to be able to say, yes, we can give a permit for this and for
that, we feel certainly that a species which is hurt should be killed.
I would think that the minister
will, before he issues any permits, any permits whatsoever, be made well aware
of what other situations he may take and options that he may take. I
guess also we have that this is also opening the door a little more in this act
to allow killing, as it states, for scientific purposes, for scientific
research and for suffering animals.
Mr. Acting Speaker, again I would hope
that this minister is careful as to who he listens to when it comes to which
endangered species is suffering or for what scientific research that he would
allow that this animal be killed. I would like to think that the minister
is and has and especially with the advisory board that he has included within
the act that he hears what the advisory board has to say, that the minister
does not act on issuing any sort of permit or conditions to allow just ad hoc
that because someone says, well, we need such and such a species for scientific
research.
Well, I would hope that the minister
does, as I have indicated earlier, monitor exactly who is making this request,
why, and before he issues any permits to anybody that he is well aware and
concerned with the fact of what species is indicated, why, the reasons for it
and that the minister must in his own mind be well assured that issuing any
permit to destroy any animal be absolutely and positively the only and the last
option that he has.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would also
want the minister to sort of give a little better definition of scientific
purposes so that we do not have any abuses. I do not see any real points
in the act, in the amendment, that give us a definition of what this minister
is going to allow when it comes to scientific purposes. They are not as
clearly stated as I feel they should be. We may make an amendment.
It has now become important to the minister to put this in, scientific
purposes, no clear definition of scientific purposes. It has now become
important because here we have and indicated and we have put into the amendment
the fact that we‑‑the minister, not we, but the minister‑‑is
going to allow permits for killing.
Also within this amendment, I feel
that if the minister follows the act and if the minister responsible takes the
proper responsibility, Mr. Acting Speaker, then the fact that the probable
purpose that we hope the minister has with the amendment to this act is to have
a more efficient issuing of permits to qualified and respected research people,
competent people, within this province and through that with the minister's
assent and with the minister's permission that these qualified people are
presenting something to the minister that is going to allow mercy killing of endangered
or threatened animals.
Hopefully with this amendment and
part of the act this will be accomplished so that we do not have just any
researcher who just feels that he wants to take on some species and do some
research on a problem and the minister just issues a permit out to kill animals
for experiments on a regular basis. Mr. Acting Speaker, he has to make
sure that this is again his only option out.
I would suggest that to the
minister, Mr. Acting Speaker. If he is in the power to issue permits, I
would like to think and like to hope that the minister will in fact have in his
annual report or on a semiannual or quarterly report a list of the people who
he has issued permits to and the reasons for issuing the permits. We
should be made well aware by this minister. We want to know. If it
is necessary, we want to know and it should be listed by the minister and it
should be presented by the minister to the members of the House. So I
would think that is one part of the act that nothing is said in it, but I feel
that we should be aware of who this minister and for what reason this minister
is issuing permits out, whether it be for mercy killings, for research, for
whatever, that we should know where and who this minister is issuing permits
to.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I would
just like to close in having to say that we do not see, I do not see‑‑some
of the other members may see and read within the lines a little more on these
amendments, and I will give them the opportunity to speak on it‑‑but
I would just like to say to the minister that if in committee there are
amendments and people who are going to come to committee to speak, if any, on
these amendments, that the minister listen and the minister respect the views
of the people besides his staff who are in the know and knowledgeable of
endangered species and to be very careful that he does not make the same
mistakes that he made with some of the other bills that he presented to us last
year in the House. Thank you very much.
*
(1440)
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Acting Speaker, I
would like to speak on this bill, Bill 2, before the House. I have
listened closely to my friend's comments, and I have reviewed the comments by
the minister. I have some concerns about this bill, and I do not intend
to speak for any great length of time, but I do want the minister to address
the concerns that I intend to raise. They are not many, but I would like to
have some further discussion on some issues at the committee.
Mr. Acting Speaker, specifically I
would like to know why the minister needs to extend his power in Section 11 to
issue permits to kill, take, collect or capture animals which would otherwise
fall within the restrictions under this act. The current wording, of
course, is that he can issue permits to collect and hold alive. The
revised definition is substantially broader and some concerns are raised by
that increase of power.
Perhaps, the whole matter is
exacerbated because it happens to be this particular minister who we know from
experience has a long track record of maximizing the discretionary opportunity
that an act affords him. Whether we take issue with that or not, we
certainly know this minister would not put a bill before the House increasing
his discretionary authority if he did not have a purpose in mind. I
believe that he is one who would not waste time with a bill unless he needed it
for something, and I would like to know what he needs it for. He is not
someone to build in discretionary power that he does not intend to use, Mr.
Acting Speaker, and I would just like to know why he wants it.
There are some real concerns about
endangered species in
An
Honourable Member: Speak to the people of Churchill.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Speaker, the member says, speak
to the people of Churchill. I have spoken to the people of Churchill.
What I have heard from the people of Churchill directly from their mouths is
that they want the opportunity, at least the ones I spoke to, to continue that
trade if you will, but they are the first to acknowledge, and they live closer
to the elements, closer to the land, closer to the species than most of us do,
in particular those who live in the city‑‑they realize that there
have to be guarantees in place to deal with these animals humanely and to
respect as much as possible even members of the animal kingdom's right to be
treated with respect and with care. We have, as I have said, had tragic
consequences with some of these animals in the past.
I am very suspicious of this
minister's desire for increased discretionary power, and I think rightly
so. Now if he comes forward with some explanations, perhaps it will
satisfy me. I do not know. The point is, none of us know why he
needs this increased power, and I would like to know, I want to understand from
him what is the pressing need that he is seeking to address in expanding this
power.
I must say, Mr. Acting Speaker, the
other thing about this bill is, it adds the inclusion of the word
"extirpated" as a class of species, which means a species, I am led
to believe, formerly indigenous to
We went through a year ago over the
Oak Hammock Marsh bill, so named by this minister, the revisions to the bill
that would have restricted this minister from doing the things he wanted to do
on protected lands in this province. Whether the project is good or not
for this province, we said at the time, and I still say, you do not revise
acts, you do not revise bills, in this case The Wildlife Act, you do not revise
them in order to deal with one specific project. If it was the Oak
Hammock Marsh bill, then this minister should have had the fortitude and the
honesty at that time to put in a section about that project and deal with it
and stand by that project. Instead we got an amendment to an act which
had to live until another Legislature changes it, and that is dangerous.
Mr. Acting Speaker, I simply want
this minister to come forward in this act and tell us what he wants to do, and
we will deal with it on that basis. The increasing of executive
discretion‑making ability under legislation is not a progressive way to
go about building acts. They are supposed to protect people from
executive authority. They are supposed to give people some assurance of
what is going to happen.
Permits, in this case, Mr. Acting
Speaker, being issued by the minister are an exception to the rule that is set
out under this act. They are to be dealt with as exceptions. Why
are we expanding that power? To build in exceptions to legislation.
If the principle is there, if it stands, then this minister should be able to
define the circumstances in which he wants those exceptions. That is the
challenge that we place to him, and that is what we look forward to hearing
from him at committee.
As a result, Mr. Acting Speaker, I
am not going to say, until I have had the benefit of the minister's comments to
this question, whether or not this party will in the end support or oppose this
legislation. I want the minister's responses to this, and I look forward
to them at the committee stage. Thank you.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting Speaker, I move,
seconded by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes), that debate be
adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
Bill 3‑The Oil and Gas and Consequential
Amendments Act
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): On the proposed
motion of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 3, The
Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et le
gaz naturel et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois,
standing in the name of the honourable
member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes). Stand?
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Agreed.
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Acting Speaker, the legislation
that we are considering here is obviously a substantial piece of
legislation. I wanted to begin by acknowledging the work of many people
who have been involved in the production of this new piece of legislation,
which is the consolidation of a number of sometimes antiquated pieces of
legislation dealing with oil and gas royalties, oil and gas reserves and the
management of oil and gas properties in the
* (1450)
Mr. Acting Speaker, we are
relatively lucky, I guess, amongst provinces to have significant reserves of
oil and gas in the province. I do not think it would be fair to say that
oil and gas is a significant portion of our overall gross domestic product, but
clearly the value of oil and gas in the
Mr. Acting Speaker, my familiarity
with oil and gas issues is fairly limited, although I do recall back in the
1950s when I first moved with my family to the farm out in
This particular piece of
legislation, as I mentioned, is designed to consolidate and to update pieces of
legislation that have preceded it. I wanted to spend some time talking
particularly about a couple of aspects of this bill that I think are important
and maybe asking some questions of the minister responsible in terms of parts
of this that perhaps could have been consolidated in a different way. I
will confess to not having read every clause of this piece of legislation,
because I do not consider myself an expert on this subject nor is it my critic
responsibility area for the time being.
I did want to raise some issues, and
I guess the first one I wanted to talk about was the issue of The Surface
Rights Act. It is not clear whether some of that act has been usurped by
amendments in this act and perhaps the minister can indicate by nodding whether
that is going to remain a separate act. So that was one of the questions.
It was not clear although it deals with wells and licensing and re‑entry
to property and lots of things.
[interjection] The minister has indicated now that there is a separate act
and there will be amendments, I suppose, consequential amendments as a result
of this act because it is quite clear that in some areas the jurisdiction
overlaps, and there are references to those issues in this act as well.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the bottom line
I guess is that this act is necessary. There is no doubt that the
industry is requesting this act. They wanted some updating and they
wanted some clarity in a couple of areas.
One of the areas that I wanted to
talk about was in the area of conservation. Mr. Acting Speaker, the fact
of the matter is that the legislation establishes a conservation‑‑I
believe it is called an oil and gas conservation board. When I went over
the purpose of this board and the powers of the board and what the board was
intended to do, the first thing I was struck with was the fact that the
government indicates it intends to appoint only three members or can appoint as
few as three members. I think that is right. I think it was three
members. It says that two of those members should be experts in the
field. Obviously, until you see who actually is appointed, I think that
there is a danger in those numbers. I just wanted to lay that out to
begin with. I think first it is clear that if you have two industry
experts, it is certainly conceivable that they have or they will have had or
they may have in the future ties to the industry.
Mr. Acting Speaker, certainly in my
opinion, and in my experience, the issue of conservation particularly when it
comes with respect to oil and gas, but certainly it is true with other primary
resources as well, the industry has never allowed itself to focus very
extensively on conservation. Industry is more interested as probably it
should be in development. Industry is interested in finding new oil and
gas reserves and depleting those reserves as quickly and as expeditiously as is
practical. That is the concern that I have and I would argue that this board
should be, I think, established a little bit differently.
I think the current‑‑[interjection] I recognize that the
current minimum number is also five, so we are now shrinking the minimum number
and we are putting potentially the power on the board in the hands of industry
experts. [interjection] Well, Mr.
Acting Speaker, it says experts. It does not say specifically civil
servants. The minister is saying that has been tradition and certainly
previously it has been, but like I said, the board has significant power and
when you are dealing with an issue like conservation I think you want to
maintain the appearance at least of neutrality when it comes to dealing with issues
like oil and gas conservation.
The board itself obviously has
limited power other than their power to report to the minister and I guess in
effect make recommendations, although I gather the board has some direct
decision making powers over the rule that the director plays in decisions that
directors make. I think that was the term that they used. Mr.
Acting Speaker, that is one concern that we have about this legislation. [interjection] I have forgotten why the
member for
*
(1500)
Mr. Acting Speaker, the other issue
that I wanted to deal with, I think, has as much to do with the government's
current revenue dilemma than it has to do with this particular bill but I think
the principle is the same and it has to do with conservation. The
government announced some time ago, on January 26 to be precise, that it would
be providing some additional royalty incentives to the industry with respect to
horizontal drilling. I looked at this and I said, what is the rationale
for this particular incentive at this time. I know the minister
responsible for Energy and Mines is from the southwestern part of the province
and represents maybe the oil capital of
Mr. Acting Speaker, what the
government has done, in my opinion, by making this particular regulatory change
dealing with incentives is basically encouraged the exploitation of known
reserves at this particular time. So we have the case where the industry
has already expended the money, the development costs of course being the
largest part of the cost. The employment that is created around the
industry generally comes through the exploration activity and the development
of the production facilities.
So we have already benefited from
that and, as has the company, benefited from the royalty tax holiday that was
in place for new wells. Now what we are doing is we are saying, let the
oil companies that have already spent those resources now deplete the resource
in a more, I guess, hurried pace. We are simply saying that the
exploitation of the resource now should continue more quickly. I am not
sure that is necessarily a good thing for the
The oil reserves in the
Mr. Acting Speaker, I would have
thought that the more appropriate direction would have been to say, let us find
a way to encourage more exploration, let us find a way to find‑‑[interjection] Well, then this was
completely redundant and unnecessary. [interjection]
The Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr. Downey) wants to say we have found a way to create more exploration.
Well, I am not sure that the statistics show that in fact is happening.
The price, the value of oil leases is far below what it was only a few years
ago, and the minister knows that. So I would have said that we would have
found something more constructive‑‑[interjection] Well, that is certainly what we need.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the minister
inadvertently again has hit upon the answer. What the minister is doing
is giving away revenue that belongs to the people of Manitoba and the province
of Manitoba on oil reserves that are known, basically saying, here is a tax
holiday, yes, you have already expended your money and you have had your
exploration allowances and recovered them through the profits you have taken
already on the oil reserves you have extracted, but here go ahead and deplete
the resources in the next couple of years and we will give you a tax holiday to
do it. I think that is a misuse of
Mr. Acting Speaker, the bottom line
I think is that particular initiative was a mistake. As I said, I would
have liked to have thought the government could have found a more creative way
to actually increase exploration at this time through some mechanism, because
we would have liked to have thought that the oil and gas industry would have
been a bigger player in our economy.
I also wanted to review for the
minister sort of some of the history of oil and gas over the last decade.
This minister, the minister responsible for the Conawapa boondoggle, as it is
called, the minister who gave the Ontario government the tough choice, either
pay us $300 million to delay it or give us $85 million to cancel it‑‑the
Ontario government gave him the appropriate answer. This minister also in
1988 sold an oil and gas company that had $14 million worth of known oil
reserves for $3 million. Those are the facts.
Mr. Acting Speaker, not only did he
do that, but at the time this minister made that decision to privatize the
Manitoba Oil and Gas Corporation he cost the taxpayers approximately $11
million in value and he promised at that time that this would be the end to the
government interference in the oil industry and that better things were on the
horizon.
Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, I can tell
you, as he the minister himself well knows, that the value of exploration in
the
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation):
What is the legacy that you left?
Mr.
Storie: The legacy the member refers to, of course, was
an oil company that had $14 million of known oil reserves. That is the
legacy.
Mr.
Driedger: You killed the mining industry.
Mr.
Storie: Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of
Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) wants to drag me into another debate
that he cannot win. The fact is that this government is telling the
mining industry in
You know what the irony and the
idiocy of that argument is? This government in 1988 had a chance to change the
tax regime‑‑1988. What did they do? Did they reduce the
tax royalties for mining companies? No. The Minister of Energy and
Mines put a surtax on mining companies of an additional 1.5 percent. It
was suppose to be a temporary surtax, but that surtax is still in place.
The tax regime effective under this government is 21.5 percent rather than 20
percent under the previous government.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the record
speaks fairly clearly for itself. When this government was in office,
between 1981 and 1988 there were five new mines opened in the
There were five mines opened during
the tenure of the previous government, and I asked the minister responsible for
Energy and Mines today how many mines have opened since this government took
office. Can the minister say zero? That is how many mines have
opened. How many communities have closed? How many jobs have been lost
in the mining industry? As we speak, the communities of Snow Lake and
Flin Flon, the operations of HBM&S are about to reduce their work force by
some 490 people.
Mr. Acting Speaker, since this
government took office, almost 1,000 miners have lost their jobs, so the
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and the Minister of
Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey) do not want to discuss at all in public this
government's record when it comes to mining in the
Back to the oil and gas issue and
these amendments. I think probably the minister does not want to talk too
much about oil and gas, because their record is not much better. I will,
however, acknowledge that this legislation was needed. As I say, there is
a consolidation of pieces in here. There are some additional supports for
particularly the environment.
I wanted to reference the
abandonment provisions in the act and the abandonment fund, which I think are
important additions, as well as the rehabilitation requirements. I think,
although they were mentioned and were mentioned partly in The Environment Act
as well, the fact is that the new rules are going to clarify the procedure for
abandonment, the procedure for rehabilitation. I think that is good.
Mr. Acting Speaker, the bottom line,
I think, is going to be how the industry and the communities that have to deal
with this act more directly are going to respond.
*
(1510)
Obviously, while I do not pretend to
understand everything in this act, I do expect that the industry will be making
its presentation on the act, that we will have an opportunity to hear some of
the oil companies operating in Manitoba, whether it is Tundra or any of the
others, and we will be listening with interest to their view. I expect
that some of the representatives of the
So, Mr. Acting Speaker, those are my
comments. The government will be introducing some amendments as we go
through the process. I am sure that they have already. I certainly
hope they have already consulted fairly broadly with respect to this
legislation and that certainly if there are issues that are raised with this caucus
beyond the issues that we have raised already and that my colleagues will raise
as we discuss this further, we will want to expedite getting to committee and
listening to what people have to say.
With those comments, I am passing
the torch to perhaps other members in the Chamber.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Acting
Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on this bill because there has
been a lot of work done in this area which had been left undone for about 40
years.
One of the things that I am very
pleased about when I was reading through the bill was the amalgamation of five
different acts which have been lying around for years and years. Those
separate statutes are The Mines Act, The Pipe Line Act, The Gas Storage and
Allocation Act and The Securities Act, and that has been long overdue, that the
government looked at it and amalgamated them all into one workable act.
The same thing happened with The Mines Act when it was changed and amalgamated.
I also had a few concerns reading through
the act. One of the areas that I was very concerned about is the whole
rehabilitation program for oil wells and exploration work. The reason I
was worried about that is, for one thing, the abandonment reserve fund that is
going to be put into place is very positive, but right now we do not know how
much money that will generate and also with the amount of money‑‑because
I was reading an article that came from the Winnipeg Free Press on January 2,
1993. In that article Omega Hydrocarbons president Dennis Hall was
stating that there will be 50 more wells scheduled for abandonment next year
because they are not economical to operate anymore.
If there are 50 wells that are going
to be abandoned, where is the money going to come from to rehabilitate those
areas to their original state? I have heard from the government over and
over that we do not have the resources for additional funds to put into various
programs and human resource areas. That concerned me. When I read
through the act I was very encouraged because there was going to be a reserve
fund to rehabilitate, but then when I read that article it triggered a little
warning, and I thought, well, what is going to happen here.
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): I kind of
reacted the same way.
Mr.
Hickes: The Minister of Natural Resources agrees
with me, and I hope that the government finds some money, some ways to look at
restoring those wells once they are abandoned.
The other area that raises some
concern, when we talk about sustainable development, we talk about safety to
the environment. I do not know if some of the members remember, but quite
a few years ago‑‑well, not that long ago, it would be within the
last 20 years‑‑there was a lot of drilling going on off the shore
of Churchill in the Hudson Bay. There was a lot of activity happening at
that time where they were taking individuals out to a ship‑‑they
had a rig out there‑‑and they were bringing them out there and they
were drilling at the bottom of the bay, and if something had ever happened
there, what would have happened to our Arctic char, our beluga whales and the
polar bears?
They were also at that time doing
some studies to see what the impact would be. They had some polar bears
that they had put in cages, and they were going through the process of what
effect it would have if they found oil and if there was an oil spill.
I had gone into the old laundry
plant at that time where they kept the bears, and I was astonished to see that
they were feeding them oil mixed with their meat and also putting oil on the
bears' fur to get the results of what would happen to animals if there was an
oil spill. As we know, of course, the bears started losing weight and
started to lose fur.
So that just goes to show that if
there is an accident that our environment would be greatly damaged, because the
environment we have in the Hudson Bay right now, the salt water is very clear
and we have an abundance of whales, we have an abundance of polar bears, but
the Arctic char, I do not know what happened there. When I was younger we used
to do a lot of fishing for char in the Bay but now there are not too many to be
had.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
The other thing that concerns me is
what pertains to part of the act where it says, according to the section:
impediments to the development of oil and gas resources be prevented or
minimized. What does the word impede mean versus the economic
benefits? If it means putting environmental measures or environmental
standards or equipment to meet those standards in place that cost X number of
dollars versus X number of profit it will generate, what offsets what? If
that could be explained further, I think that would clear it up for a lot of
people who are concerned about this new bill.
Under the bill the other thing is it
says, the only reference to The Environment Act is: the operators of
battery or gas plants make every reasonable effort to operate with the least
possible discharge of pollutants. What is the least possible
discharge? What is the measurement? Is it 75 percent? Is it
50 percent? Is it 25 percent? Is it 5 percent? As little as
possible, right.
If you look at some the factories
that are going on in Mexico, under their system they have today, without
putting additional dollars into it, that is the least amount of pollutants that
they are putting into our air. So what does least amount mean?
Maybe there is logic to it. I do not know. If there are strong measures
to protect that‑‑because like I said earlier when I started off, so
far as I am concerned, this bill has a lot of good ideas in it and it has been
thought out, but there are just some areas that without further explanation I
do not understand.
The other area that I was looking
into was the development of the board. Right now they are limited to five
members, and the new proposed one must have at least three members but no
maximum number. So how many members on that board will we have?
Will it be three or will it be 30? There is no set number there. It
says at least three members. If it stays at three or five I do not have
any problem with that, but if it is a board that could be created I guess to go
along with the patronage, then I do have a difficulty with that.
*
(1520)
One of the changes to the board that
has been proposed here which I find very, very encouraging is in the previous
act the board members did not have to have any qualifications to be
appointed. So when you talk about expertise required to manage your oil
and gas resources I am very pleased to see at least two members must have
specific knowledge in the oil and gas areas. That way we should have access to
expertise, access to people with knowledge in that given area, and that way it
gives you at least accountability to that board.
The other thing is that only one
member may be a government employee. Some people might criticize that,
but I do not see a problem with that. If it is a government employee that
answers directly to the government a lot of that information that is discussed
in the boards could be passed onto the minister for‑‑well, I guess,
to make sure that the minister is up on what is happening in the oil and gas
industry.
The other area pertaining to the
board, that I guess if they handled it well, should not create any
problems. Like I mentioned before, when I was speaking on the bill
dealing with natural resources pertaining to power of this, of the thing, it
might not be this minister, it might not be the next minister, but what could
happen in the future if we have a minister that would dictate and have their
own agenda that is not in accordance to people's wishes‑‑[interjection] Well, no, because it says
right in there that the minister is having more power under these changes than
the board. The board is more of an advisory role to the minister.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the
Chair)
An
Honourable Member: The minister has been elected by
the people.
Mr.
Hickes: The minister is elected by the people, but
the board is appointed. That should be an extension to the minister,
because they are the ones with the expertise. So if there is a spill or a
disaster, the board has the expertise in order to say, well, let us get at it
right away or if‑‑[interjection]
Well, that is fine and dandy, but I said it could be a problem. I am not
saying it will be a problem, but it could be a problem. Maybe not now but 20,
30 years, who knows? That is the only question that I have. While I
look across here, my mind is at rest with various ministers, I will assure you
that, but I cannot predict the future.
So with those comments I just wanted
to raise the few concerns I had. The other thing is that I would like to
say again that I think it is an excellent move as long as it is handled
properly. The other thing that I would caution is to be sure that our
environment is looked after and protected. Like I mentioned to you about
the possibilities of the drilling that was happening in Churchill and Hudson
Bay, where if there was an oil spill there, the people‑‑we take a
lot of our recreation, a lot of our food and stuff is taken from the Hudson
Bay, like the beluga whales, we eat the meat there, like we eat the muktuk, the
Arctic char, polar bears you cannot anymore. When I was a kid we used to
eat them, but now you cannot because they are protected.
So if the government ensures, does
their best‑‑they cannot always be 100 percent perfect‑‑but
does their best to make sure that the environment is looked after and the
rehabilitation is put in place, I support what is happening here. I look
forward to the changes. Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): I believe I have the
leave of other members of the House to revert to Bill 6 just to make some brief
comments and leave it standing in the member for Point Douglas‑‑
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Order,
please. At this time we are still dealing with Bill 3. So if the
honourable member‑‑
An
Honourable Member: If he wants to adjourn, he may.
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): OK.
Mr.
Jim Maloway (Elmwood): I move, seconded by the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion
agreed to.
House Business
Mr.
Storie: Just on House business, Mr. Acting
Speaker. I believe the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) would like
leave to speak for a few minutes on Bill 6. I realize that matter has
previously been dealt with, but with leave we certainly on this side are
prepared to grant leave for him to do that.
Bill 6‑The Real Property Amendment Act
The
Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is there leave
for the House to allow the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) to
speak to Bill 6, which is standing at this time in the name of the honourable
member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes)? Agreed. Leave.
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): At this time‑‑
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Prior to recognizing
the honourable member for Point Douglas, we have already dealt with Bill 6,
which was first called under Orders of the Day, at which time leave was granted
to the honourable member for Point Douglas to have this matter standing in his
name. I believe at this time, the honourable member for Point Douglas
would like to stand up and make a few remarks.
Mr.
Hickes: Mr. Speaker, at this time we are ready to
pass the bill into committee, The Real Property Amendment Act.
Mr.
Speaker: Done? OK. Now that bill is
open.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, we too are prepared to
have this bill moved to committee. I do want to put a few comments on the
record at this time with respect to The Real Property Amendment Act.
As members will remember who came to
this House or were in this House in 1988, there was some significant discussion
around the land titles system in this province with the new government coming
into place mostly because the real property system in this province was an
unmitigated disaster under the New Democratic administration. No one who
had the misfortune to have to deal with the Land Titles Office in the years
immediately preceding 1988 would dispute that.
The consumers of this province, the
people who were involved in land transactions were waiting three, four, five
weeks and more to have their titles issued out of our land titles registry
system, and that caused all kinds of difficulties in terms of bridge
financing. Administration of justice was increasingly getting a bad name
under the New Democratic administration. It simply was not a priority for
them.
Now, aside from that, that the
system was a total disaster, they brought in a land transfer tax. They
forced consumers to pay significantly more for worse service; that was the
legacy of the NDP with respect to Land Titles, and quite rightly, not just
people who had to deal with the Land Titles, mostly lawyers, but their clients,
average Manitobans, who were just trying to sell and buy a house, were
complaining vociferously and rightly so. They were paying hundreds, sometimes
thousands of dollars in fees and taxes and on top of that were having to pay
huge costs, huge costs to most Manitobans, in bridge financing their mortgages,
because they had sold their house they were most often buying another house at
the same time and they had this four‑, five‑, six‑week lag period
when they could not get title issued and therefore mortgage funds could not
flow. That is the simplistic view of it but that is, in reality, what was
happening. It was a bad system.
*
(1530)
I spoke at length in the House at
that time with the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and to be fair, Mr.
Speaker, the system has improved. We have moved to computers. Those
were things that I had the pleasure of recommending back in June of 1988 when
this first came up, the new session had started. It was my suggestion
that we move to computers. The government has done that, has moved to a
more streamlined process in keeping with the rest of the country, I might
add. It was high time that we used modern technology to give the
efficiencies to the system. The Minister of Justice in my view made some
errors, the system could be better, but the point is when he came into power it
could hardly be worse and anything would have been improvement, and it has
improved.
In addition to that, of course, the
number of transactions dropped dramatically in ensuing years, mostly because
the housing market declined. I understand it is on a comeback and I am
very pleased about that. It is always a sign of economic improvement when
people start moving and switching houses because they are generally improving,
they are generally moving up. It is getting more people, first home
buyers, into the market and that has an impact on new homes which are
purchased, and construction, et cetera, et cetera.
Mr. Speaker, there has been great
decline under this administration in terms of new home construction, in terms
of transaction at the Land Titles Office. As a result the land transfer
tax has not brought in the revenue that they were seeking and hoping for, but I
do acknowledge that the system has improved with new technology being
utilized. Alex Morton, a former associate of mine at the firm that I
practise at, has been the Registrar General for the province and she has done
an excellent job in attempting to reform the system.
We have in this bill some amendments
which, as the minister says, simply are intended to confirm existing Land
Titles practice. The first major one of those is that the date the
document is presented for registration and given a serial number is the effective
date, and that is going to be stated more clearly in law. Mr. Speaker,
that, I am led to believe‑‑and I do not practise directly in this
area‑‑is the practice and the reality anyway. If we are
clarifying that in the law, then that is a positive move.
I will look at committee, I will put
on record for the minister for his evidence at that time that he has the
approval of the appropriate groups. For instance, I assume these have
come forward at the behest of Ms. Morton, the Registrar General. I assume that
we have the approbation of the Bar Association, others who are interested in
this field have been consulted. Usually they have.
I might add that in cases where
these types of bills have come forward, we have got some comment from those
groups, and generally the minister has respected their wishes and looked for
their approval of amendments. I do not see that in his comments on the
bill, but I will look for that at the committee.
Mr. Speaker, the second change,
major change, is to increase the accountability of judgment creditors who
register a claim against a piece of property, and they are now being asked to
verify that the debtor is in fact that landowner that they are putting the
claim on, because when you register a claim against land it can seriously
affect that landowner's right to deal with the land. They cannot sell it
anymore without getting that claim off, so you have to make sure that the
person who owes you the money is the owner. If it is the former owner it
is no good. You are causing damage to somebody who does not owe you
anything. So we are placing a burden on a creditor to check, to make sure
and to essentially be prepared to pay any damages that flow from wrongfully
putting it on the title. That is legitimate. Again that is the
practice. We are clarifying that; we are making it clear. I
certainly support clarifying that in the law. If it streamlines the
system, makes it clear for the consumers, people who are buying and selling
land in this province, then that is good.
Mr. Speaker, I trust that the
minister's intention here is not to allow judgment debtors to escape from their
debts but simply place a greater burden on the creditors when they are
registering something against a piece of land, because this is a unique transaction.
The whole British system of land
transaction which we function under is completely unique. It is not like
buying a car, it is not like buying a piece of furniture, it is not like buying
anything else. Land is given special significance and it has historically
been given. That is why we have this Land Titles Office. Why?
Because land is treated as a unique asset. No piece of land is
duplicated. It is unlike anything else. It is totally unique on the
face of the earth, a piece of land, and so we have always dealt with it as a
special asset, real property.
That has meant, unfortunately for
many, many would say, that when people go to buy land and sell land they have
hired lawyers. Why? Because they want to make sure that what they
think they are getting they are actually getting, that the surveys are checked,
that the land titles are checked, that it does not have any liens against it,
that it does not have any claims against it, that the survey says the
neighbour's garage is not built onto your property. It is special in that
sense.
The other reason it is special is
that for most people in
So, Mr. Speaker, it is a unique
asset. As a result we have unique rules. As a result, for better or
worse, lawyers get involved, and when things go wrong lawyers have trust funds
and insurance proceeds which are paid and people have that assurance.
That is why they pay for the experts to give them those assurances.
I look forward to some further
specific debate with the minister, and I do look forward to some evidence from
him that we have consulted with the appropriate subsection of the Bar
Association, that we have Ms. Morton's approval on this.
Mr. Speaker, I want to close by
simply asking the minister to bring that material to the committee, and I am
sure that this bill will gain the approval of our party if in fact we have
those assurances at that time.
Mr.
Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 6, The Real Property
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les biens reels. Is it the
pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some
Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr.
Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 5‑The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 5, The Northern
Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du Nord, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Mr.
Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the
House for leaving this standing in my colleague's name.
Mr. Speaker, this particular piece
of legislation is very short and to the point, and I want to take a few minutes
because we are going to be talking about the principle of the bill. I
want to expand the debate a little bit to talk about a number of other issues
that relate to this particular piece of legislation.
The Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) I think is painfully aware of many of the problems that confront
rural municipalities, Northern Affairs communities, when it comes to planning,
and the amendments here which I think are meant in part at least to expedite
planning, organization for Northern Affairs communities are important.
*
(1540)
I want to start, Mr. Speaker, by
talking for a minute about some of the Northern Affairs communities in the Flin
Flon constituency. The last four years and a bit have not been
particularly kind to Northern Affairs communities. We all are for better
planning. Unfortunately, this small, rather straightforward amendment is
not what we should be dealing with this session. What we should be
dealing with when it comes to Northern Affairs communities is a much more
comprehensive piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that deals with the
range of planning problems that face Northern Affairs communities, and I know
whereof I speak.
In 1983, 1984 when I first became
Minister of Northern Affairs I met with a delegation from the Northern
Association of Community Councils and they raised the issue of land planning in
particular. And they said, you know we find it a little frustrating to
look around our communities and realize that beyond the immediate community
boundaries and even within the community boundaries when it comes to
subdivisions, the release of subdivision lots, et cetera, we have virtually no
power.
An Honourable Member:
. . . change it?
Mr. Storie:
Mr. Speaker, we did make some changes. There were a whole range of other
problems that came to the Department of Northern Affairs and Northern Affairs
communities from other departments, including the Minister of Highways and
Transportation's department. He has been there now for five years, and I
will ask him whether he has changed any of the rights and obligations of
community councils with respect to highways, right of ways, road planning,
access roads, and the answer is no. [interjection]
Well, the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) may want to fudge a bit and say,
some, yes; but the fact of the matter is for communities like Sherridon,
communities like Wabowden, communities like Brochet or South Indian Lake, those
communities sometimes feel powerless. Those communities, to simply get an
access road into a new garbage dump, have to go through literally months of
planning. Not only do they have to go through months of planning through
the Department of Highways, the Department of Natural Resources, but they also,
as a matter of government policy, have to circulate any land‑use issue
amongst government departments.
Mr. Speaker, when I first looked at
this almost a decade ago, it took 37 separate signatures to release a piece of
land, of Crown land in northern
Mr. Speaker, this amendment, which
deals with the minister relating to the taking over some responsibility, I
guess, for giving him the power to act for the PUB, is only such a small part
of the problem that I would encourage the minister actually to withdraw this
legislation. I am not saying that the small piece that the minister is
dealing with may not be appropriate. That may be useful. That may
expedite some of the work of the community councils. What I am saying‑‑[interjection]
Well, Mr. Speaker, the fact of the
matter is that, if the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), I guess, had
been working consistently with Northern Affairs communities over the last five
years, rather than, you know, backslapping at NACC conventions, some of these
problems would have been on his plate. [interjection]
The Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) is laughing because
he knows the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Downey). He knows him very
well, as do I. So the Minister of Northern Affairs is the only person I
know who can get sore hands in a room of six people. That is because he
shakes everybody's hand a dozen times.
Mr. Speaker, the bottom line however
is, and it is unfortunate, that every time they want to release a single piece
of land in their community to develop a new residence to allow someone to
build, to purchase property, to build a community building, whether it is a
fire hall or a community hall, these communities are required to go through a
completely exhausting process, a time‑consuming process that delays
everything in the community.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that there
are things coming through the Minister of Natural Resources' (Mr. Enns) office
fast and furious. The unfortunate part is that that is only one piece in
a long chain of getting the required signatures. I am not trying to
suggest here that these things are not required.
I am not trying to suggest that the
province should release unoccupied Crown land without some sort of a process to
make sure that it is not encumbered in some way by a mineral lease or timber
rights or a Highways right‑of‑way or a Telephone right‑of‑way
or a Hydro water power reserve area or a trapline zone or whatever. There
should be in the department an ombudsman, an expediter, someone who would on
behalf of the community take the piece of land in question, take the property,
take the subdivision or whatever and move it through this process on behalf of
the community, because I can tell you the frustration that communities like, I
guess Sherridon is probably as good an example as any, have when they go
through this process.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many
people realize that the community councils, the mayors and councils of our
small communities operate on a volunteer basis. They are elected; they
are unpaid elected officials. They receive honorariums that amount to a
some stunning $80 per month.
An Honourable Member:
We increased them when we came in. You had frozen them for how many
years.
Mr. Storie:
Well, if the member wants to take credit for increasing it to $80, I guess he
may. My point is not that the honorariums‑‑they are
indifferent. The point is that the council and the mayor have the
frustration of dealing with the bureaucracy. What I am saying is that
somehow we should not expect the mayor and council, who are volunteering their
time in essence to serve their community, should have this kind of frustration
and headache. It is difficult‑‑[interjection] Pardon me? [interjection]
Mr. Speaker, I hope the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) is not
suggesting that community council representatives and mayors are in any way
remunerated for the amount of time they spend on behalf of their
community. An honourarium is a small show of respect only for their
contribution. That is what it is.
Well, the minister wants to lay it
out. I am having a little difficulty with the minister's comments from
his seat, because it leads me to believe that he really does not appreciate the
time and effort the community councillors and mayors in our communities put on
behalf of their people.
Point
of Order
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern
Affairs): I would not want to leave that innuendo
on the record, that I in any way do not appreciate the hard work and effort of
every mayor and council in northern Manitoba that put their time and effort
forward on behalf of their communities. It is misleading, it is
inappropriate and improper, and it is not the case.
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable minister does not have a point of
order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
*
* *
Mr. Storie: The
minister seems a little sensitive on this, and perhaps if he would be a little
more thoughtful in his comments from his seat, it was clearly implied that somehow
$80 was sufficient payment for a month for all of the work and effort these
people expend. I am saying, it is a token. It was a token when we
were government. It is a token since this government in recognition of
their work.
What I am saying is that the problem
the minister is attempting to address in this small piece of legislation
represents such a small fraction of the real problem that the government should
do the right thing. The minister should go back to the drawing board,
work with his fellow colleagues on Treasury Board, the Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns), the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger), the Minister
responsible for Hydro (Mr. Downey), the Minister responsible for Telephones
(Mr. Findlay), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) himself, Minister
of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), and find a way to ensure that someone in
the bureaucracy is responsible for taking a piece of land through the planning
stages, through the process of approval, departmental approval, Crown
corporation approval, on behalf of the community.
*
(1550)
Mr. Speaker, I know and the minister
knows that these communities, the mayors and councillors in particular, to whom
the burden usually falls, simply do not have time to follow this through and
expedite the process. So a simple request for a piece of property on
which to build a community hall or to build an access road can be mired down in
two years worth of bureaucratic red tape if you will. That is all I am
saying. So I would have hoped that the minister would have taken the time
to try and resolve some of the larger problems that face these communities
because they are important.
Mr. Speaker, of course, the
regulatory problems that face these small communities are only part of the problem.
They are also faced, unfortunately, with a government that has abandoned them
in a number of other ways. In 1987‑1988, the
Mr. Speaker, likewise in the 1980s,
the government of
Mr. Speaker, what we are facing in
northern
That is the real challenge for the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) and a real challenge for the
government because these people, like children in poverty, are a long way away
from the services, are in most need and I think have to look to government to
provide some leadership. I do not think anyone, no leader in northern
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the
minister take this back to the drawing board. I suggest the minister
attempt to deal in this legislation with the range of problems that those small
municipalities face when it comes to planning and attempt to present us with
legislation that expedites the process in its entirety or in the main, rather
than dealing with one small aspect of it.
Those are my comments. Thank
you.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):
Just looking at Bill 5 and some of the comments from the Minister of Northern
Affairs (Mr. Downey), it sort of brings me back to when I was in the training
area where we used to do a lot of training in the communities. Before we had
any projects approved in any communities, we always made the effort and made
sure that we met with the mayors and councils of those communities.
An Honourable Member:
Did you shake hands, George?
Mr. Hickes:
I do not understand that question. I do not understand that‑‑did
you shake hands? At those meetings, a lot of the mayors and councils, like
my colleague was saying, are not in those positions to make a lot of money,
because they do not get paid a very‑‑they get a small honorarium,
which is true. A lot of those community leaders are the ones that
spearhead the communities. They are the ones that are involved in almost
every aspect that the communities get involved in. They do give of
themselves a lot of their time and efforts, and it happens in every community.
You know, we could look in the
southern communities, northern communities, east communities, west communities
and there is always a small nucleus of individuals in those communities that
sort of forge the community to further developments. They are the leaders
of the community.
I have been into almost every
community in northern
Those communities are always working
very, very close together. So when you talk about sewer and water
projects, you know, when you bring in sewer and water into, say, Cross Lake,
you have a Northern Affairs community, and for years and years the school and
the public buildings were the only places that had access to sewer and water,
and then the community got it and finally the band got it, and it does make a
big difference to the lifestyles and commitments to, I guess, one's own home
when advancement is made.
Some people figure, well, the old
outdoors will always do, but we are changing with time. Someday I hope
not too far in the distant future we will see every community, whether it be a
reserve or a Northern Affairs community, have access for the people to sewer
and water.
We had a training project where‑‑we
talk about these amendments to the communities, amendments to the towns, but we
always overlook a lot of times where we could be of the most benefit to the
communities, where if we have projects that are within those communities we
should try and at least employ people from those communities to either get
training in those areas or at least get a job on those projects.
One good example, when I see where
in this bill, where it refers to sewer and water, was the community of
*
(1600)
So when you talk about sewer and
water in the community, those are the kinds of initiatives that I hope that
Northern Affairs will address and will work with the mayor and councils. The
mayor and councils are there to try and help their community and their
people. It is not really to try and make a lot of money or to get
rich. What they are trying to do is to stay active in their community and
lead their community forward.
Also when you talk about Northern
Affairs communities, you could look at the whole aspect of housing
issues. There is a great need for housing in some areas, but a lot of it
has been addressed by MHRC and CMHC through, well, it used to be Regional
Housing I guess, and they used to develop housing for the community
needs. CMHC had various programs to help the people. That is the kind of
initiatives that we have to continue to have.
When we talk about minor changes in
certain bills, I hope the long‑range plans are to help the communities to
further develop. When you talk about occupations of land, sure, the minister is
right. If you had to get permits for every time someone wants to occupy
land you would be continually going back in those communities to have a meeting
with the mayor and council for every use, but when there is agreement signed
for occupations of lands in those communities, it should be done very, very
carefully with the occupants of those communities. When you say
occupants, it is the community leaders, your mayors and councillors.
If you look back in the communities,
a lot of the communities have had pretty well the same‑‑when you
look at the community leaders, a lot of them have been there for years.
If they have not been there, it is their families that have been there.
Like, if you look at the community of Pikwitonei, I am sure the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) would recognize the Thorne name. They have
been very active in that community. The mother, Mrs. Thorne, was the
mayor for many, many years, and she kept getting re‑elected over and over
and over. I had the pleasure of participating in some meetings when she
was mayor at that time, and her council, and she was a very, very active
participant at those meetings and a very forceful person, and she fought hard
and worked very hard to try and develop her community. Then I sort of
followed what has been happening in the North, because I am from there, and I
saw later where her son, John, was elected mayor, and he followed in his
mother's footsteps.
So, that is the kind of activity
that happens in northern
When I was looking at the bill where
the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) seconded this bill, I was pleased
to see that, because I have always believed that Northern Affairs and Natural
Resources go hand in hand. They have to work very closely. They
have to consult with one another in many, many areas. If you look at the
Natural Resources area, the hunting and the fishing, a lot of your users for
food are from the Northern Affairs communities.
Mr. Speaker, with those few comments
I look forward to other participants debating this bill, and hopefully the
minister will look at working closely and look at ways of maybe further
rewarding the mayors and councils who work very diligently in those
communities.
Mr. Speaker:
Is the House ready for the question?
An Honourable Member:
It is still standing.
Mr. Speaker:
Yes, Bill 5. Leave has already been granted to the honourable member for
Interlake to stand.
Bill
8‑The Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur les assurances, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). Stand? Is there leave that this matter
remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):
Mr. Speaker, as I understand this act, it contains very little of any major
substance, and that it is mainly a housekeeping type of bill, mainly
administrative type of bill, but it does touch upon a very important subject
that is dear to the hearts of Manitobans, and that is the availability or lack
of availability of good insurance, of reasonably priced insurance.
I appreciate that this bill is more
all‑encompassing than just MPIC, but the fact is that MPIC has played and
continues to play a very significant and important role in the lives of Manitobans.
In fact, MPIC has been and, to some extent, continues to be more than just
Autopac. As we know, it had a very important portfolio of general
insurance, and admittedly the general insurance business did have some
difficult times, but it did turn around and there was money to be made.
But this government in its wisdom,
Mr. Speaker, regrettably eliminated the general insurance division, even though
it has shown that it had been turned around and that it was making money.
Not only that, but the general insurance section or division of MPIC provided
insurance to a lot of people who normally have great difficulty in getting
protection: people in remote communities, certain types of enterprises,
certain types of industries that had expressed difficulty to us in terms of
getting adequate coverage from private insurers. This included
enterprises such as those engaged in sporting activities and tourist
activities, various recreational activities. It included people in other
miscellaneous businesses, such as the pesticide business, who said they were
dependent on MPIC general insurance.
I think it is regrettable, Mr.
Speaker, that this government has seen fit to eliminate that particular portion
of MPIC activities, and I do regret as well the loss of jobs in my own
constituency that resulted from that particular decision. Frankly, I do not
think the people of
Mr. Speaker, this is the time of the
year that people are very concerned about insurance in general, and, as I said,
Bill 8, hopefully, will make some improvements, minor as they may be, that
might improve the insurance situation in the province.
But, when you talk about insurance today
to Manitobans, they immediately think of course of automobile insurance because
this is on everyone's mind to the extent that you read reports about it in the
papers, you hear about it on the radio, and so on, where people simply cannot
afford to pay the kind of premiums that they are being asked to pay. As a
result, we find people‑‑I was surprised myself as late as yesterday
seeing the number of licence plates around this city, driving around the city a
bit, that did not have the red sticker on, did not have the sticker indicating
that they had obtained a renewal of their Autopac policy, that they had not
renewed it for the 1993 driving year.
*
(1610)
Of course, there have been reports
that people, for whatever reason, have not been able to afford it, stories of
people leaving their cars at home, taking the bus. In fact, my wife
remarked and friends remarked to me that they noticed even fewer cars on the
road because people for whatever reason were not able to pay their Autopac
premium and, as a result, decided they had to leave the car at home, leave
their vehicle at home and take the bus or whatever.
I guess, hopefully, some of them may
come around to being able to pay for it in the next week or two or whatever,
but it is a reflection of the fact that automobile insurance is very expensive
for Manitobans, particularly when Manitobans are taking pay cuts, particularly
when Manitobans are losing their jobs, particularly when we see people laid off
left, right and centre or people being worried about being laid off their
jobs. People feel very insecure. There is no doubt in my mind that
a lot of workers today are in a worse position to pay for auto insurance than
they have been for some time.
I regret that in terms of insurance
this government has not taken any effective action to keep the price of Autopac
premiums from rising. Judge Kopstein was appointed by the previous NDP
government to look at ways and means of curtailing rising costs in auto
accidents and, therefore, in auto insurance premiums. He came forth with
a long list of recommendations.
I know some of the recommendations
have been put into place, but the major recommendation, the fundamental
recommendation, was that we go for a pure no‑fault system comparable to
the system in
The interesting thing about
For the life of me‑‑the
government has two reports now telling them that this is the way to go, this is
the way to save money, this is the way to keep the premiums down, and yet they
see fit not to act upon this, the major recommendation. I would remind
the Minister of MPIC (Mr. Cummings) now of all of his statements and the
grandstanding that he engaged in in 1987 and '88 in front of this building and
elsewhere with regard to rising Autopac premiums. Somehow or other
Autopac premiums at that time were supposed to be being raised at a level that
was unacceptable and nobody liked to see high rates, but somehow or other the
idea was put out that a Conservative government would somehow magically roll
back these rates or at least freeze these rates and, you know, the people who
rallied to the cause and supported the Conservative Party I am sure are
extremely disappointed, to say the least.
I am sure they are wondering exactly
what has happened, and I think particularly of that young woman who led the
demonstration. I just wonder what she is thinking today of what has
happened since this government has been in office, because we have had one
increase after another, one major increase after another and again this year to
top it all off one of the highest, in fact the highest rates of increase when
you take inflation into account, but we know from statements by Autopac, by
MPIC, that the basic reason for MPIC costs going up are the bodily injury
claims.
The bodily injury claims are going
up because of the serious amount of litigation that is going on and the extreme
amount of costs being incurred by the court system. Monies that are paid
to the legal profession, to the courts as a result are forcing up Autopac
premiums unnecessarily in this province. So, here is an opportunity, Mr.
Speaker, for this minister and this government to move forward and do something
of significance to keep the costs from rising in the future. They have
been rising substantially in the past and there is no reason to think that they
will not rise again in the future unless we make a drastic change in the
system.
I think people in
Also is gone the failure to make
proper payments to various people engaged in the repair system. Certainly
it is better for the agents, because they do not have to wake up in the middle
of the night to answer problems of people who have had accidents and so on.
We have a good system, and we have a system that is worth preserving and
protecting, but it is not a system that cannot stand some improvement.
For the life of me, I do not understand why a government would not accept a
major recommendation of the Kopstein report of the Kopstein Commission.
In fact, this was the reason that Judge Kopstein was commissioned to do the
study, to come up with an answer, come up with some way of government, of MPIC
maintaining low Autopac rates. This was it, the No. 1 recommendation, and
yet I know the minister has stated over and over again in answers to my
questions both in this House and in the committee that, in so many words, over
his dead body, so to speak, words to that effect, will a no‑fault system
be brought in.
I know there is opposition from the
legal profession in this province. I know they have prepared
briefs. They probably have been approaching the minister. I do not
know whether they have been approaching the minister recently, but they are
very concerned about it, because if we went to a no‑fault system we would
be saving tens upon tens of millions of dollars. Of course, I guess
lawyers look upon it as a loss of income. Mr. Speaker, all in all,
therefore, we would have a better insurance system. All in all we would
have a system that would provide protection at far more reasonable rates.
I again remind the minister and other members of the House, look at what has
been happening in
Mr. Speaker, I know there are
criticisms of a no‑fault system. Some people would say, well, you
know there are limitations to how much should be paid out, and therefore, if
you have a high income, you will not be necessarily adequately compensated for
your loss. There are ways around this. In fact, I think Judge
Kopstein made reference to it in his report, that an individual could buy
supplementary insurance so that if he or she were of a high income he or she could
protect themselves from a payment from a no‑fault insurance board that
might not be adequate in terms of their own particular income. So there
is a way of getting around that particular criticism.
*
(1620)
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, if I
recall, and I do not have the document with me, the Kopstein report also
recommended that apart from an internal review there would also be possibility
of finally going to court anyway, so that it is not as though a person would be
forever denied access to the courts if he or she were not satisfied with what
came out of the system in terms of compensation.
The interesting thing, yes, and it
sounds like magic, Mr. Speaker, is that, according to Judge Kopstein, not only
would we be able to keep Autopac premiums from rising but the average payout
would be substantially better, so that the average claimant, the average
injured party would be receiving far more compensation than he or she is now
obtaining under the tort system that we are presently following.
So, Mr. Speaker, I just take this
opportunity to make this plea. I know this bill, The Insurance Amendment
Act, goes beyond MPIC and deals with the insurance industry in general, but the
fact is that MPIC is one of our most important insurance companies in the
province, and no matter which way you slice it, it plays a very vital role in
Today the minister made reference to
the salary, or yesterday rather, when I asked the question about this enormous
increase in the salary of the chair of the MPIC going up by 75 percent‑‑an
atrocious amount, Mr. Speaker, when everyone else is being asked to take cuts,
when people are being laid off, when school divisions and hospitals and welfare
recipients and so on are getting less money, and here we turn around and pay
someone, who, I believe is retired, an enormous amount of money.
Nevertheless, the minister did say, well, we need him because he is worth it, and
because he is going to be doing something very important and moving us towards,
I think he said, Autopac 2000, if I recall. I am just wondering if in
that reference the minister is finally making a move towards a no‑fault
system. We do not know. He has remained very quiet about it, but he
is now justifying this unusually large increase in the salary of the
chairperson or the chairman of MPIC's Board of Directors in terms of the job,
in terms of the work cut out for this individual, that there is going to be some
major change in the automobile insurance system.
Mr. Speaker, we have had two major
studies of automobile insurance, and the two major studies, one by Judge
Kopstein, the other by the Tillinghast group, both indicate categorically that
there are savings to be made, that there are improvements that can be made in
the system that we have. For the life of me, therefore, I do not know why
this minister or this government would not accept the recommendations of those
two major reviews and go with that. I do not know what else the minister
might have in mind. I would appreciate it very much if the minister would
participate in this debate on Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment Act, and take
this opportunity to give some of his thoughts on this matter.
It is fine for me to talk here
reasonably and so on, but there are a lot of angry people out there, a lot of
angry people on the street complaining about their Autopac premiums,
complaining about what is, I guess, generally a 10 percent increase on average,
a little less for some but a lot more for certain other categories; people not
understanding; people being disappointed, being disillusioned; people who do
not understand why year after year they are being forced to pay higher and
higher premiums. As I was saying earlier, the fact of the matter is you
have so many people now out of work, so many people who have had reduced
incomes, so many people who are working on temporary jobs, who, instead of full‑time
jobs, are working part‑time jobs so that you, therefore, get people with
lower incomes, people who find it even more difficult than ever to pay their
Autopac premiums.
Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to get up and rise on this matter. There is a lot more to be
said on the issue of insurance, whether it be new definitions of reinsurance,
because that is made reference to in this bill, and other details in here which
refer to ways contracts will be signed or countersigned by agents, and the role
of the superintendent in carrying out the administration of The Insurance Act,
and procedures affecting insurers on delivery of application and so on,
notification of insurer. I appreciate there are some moves here that
hopefully will provide a better organized system of supervising and carrying
out the insurance business, the protection offered by the industry in this
province.
Mr. Speaker, again, I say in
conclusion that the MPIC, which, I believe, has over the years played a
significant role in providing a type of automobile insurance that would not be
available under a private system, has to be improved. Again, I appeal to,
through you, Sir, members of the House and to the government to take a hard
good look at the Kopstein report, the Tillinghast report, and do the right
thing. Bring in a system that is going to keep premiums down and that is
going to pay out better compensation to those who may unfortunately be involved
in the accidents. There is no question about it. The main reason
for Autopac increases is bodily injury claims, and these bodily injury claims
come out of the litigation that occurs in all the legal costs that are
involved: to the lawyers, to the law profession, and to the courts‑‑not
to speak of all the delays and so on.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is the
way. We have been shown the way. We have been given the advice by
experts and, for the life of me, I do not see why the minister and the
government does not accept that particular advice. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker:
As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable
member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
Bill
10‑The Farm Lands Ownership
Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay),
Bill 10, The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act;
Loi modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill
12‑The International Trusts Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion, the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), Bill
12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill
13‑The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Stefanson), Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund
Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le fonds
de participation des travailleurs du Manitoba, standing in the name of the
honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing. [agreed]
House
Business
Mr. Speaker:
The honourable acting government House leader, what are your intentions, sir?
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government
House Leader): Yes, I hear some call from some members
to call it six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker:
Is it the will of the House to call it six o'clock? No, OK, that is out.
Is
it the will of the House to call it five o'clock?
Mr. Praznik:
Yes, I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if there is a willingness of this House to call
it five o'clock?
Mr. Speaker:
Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? Yes, it is agreed.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker:
The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for Private Members' Business.
DEBATE
ON SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill
200‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion for
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill
203‑The Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis),
Bill 203, The Health Care Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux, standing
in the name of the honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker:
Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill
205‑‑The Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker:
On the proposed motion of the honourable member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak),
Bill 205, The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker:
Are we proceeding with Bill 208? OK, we are not proceeding. Are we
proceeding with Bill 209 in the name of the honourable member for
*
(1630)
Are we proceeding with Bill 211,
standing in the name of the honourable member for
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government
House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on House business, I detect
from the Liberal House leader that there may now be a willingness on the part
of the Liberal Party to call it six o'clock. You may wish to canvass the
House if they have changed their minds.
Mr. Speaker:
Do you want me to canvass the House again? Is it the will of the House to
call it six o'clock?
The hour being 6 p.m. this House is
now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).