LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, June 2, 2005
The House met at 10 a.m.
PRAYERS
Point of Order
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: A quorum count?
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, please.
Mr. Speaker: Clerk, could you please do a quorum count.
Please rise in your place so you can be counted.
Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): Honourable Mr. Ashton, Honourable Mr. Smith, Honourable Mr. Caldwell, Honourable Mr. Lemieux, Mr. Maloway, Mr. Martindale, Ms. Korzeniowski, Honourable Mr. Rondeau, Ms. Brick, Mr. Jha, Ms. Irvin-Ross, Mr. Swan, Mr. Derkach, Mr. Cummings, Mr. Murray, Mrs. Driedger, Mr. Reimer, Mr. Maguire, Mrs. Stefanson, Mr. Hawranik, Mr. Dyck, Mr. Loewen, Honourable Mr. Gerrard, Mr. Jennissen, Mr. Dewar, Mrs. Rowat, Mr. Cullen, Mr. Lamoureux, Mr. Schellenberg, Honourable Mr. Hickes.
Mr. Speaker: There is a quorum.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Before we proceed into Orders of the Day, I would like to introduce some guests.
Seated in the gallery we
have 44 visitors under the direction of Ms. Kathy Hamilton, and they are the guests of the honourable Member for
Also in the public
gallery, from
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
House Business
Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, after a discussion between House leaders, there was some interest in changing the order, by leave, to call 209 and 210.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to bring forward, to do Bills 209 and 210 first? Is
there leave? [Agreed]
SECOND READINGS–PUBLIC
BILLS
Bill
209–The Firefighters Compensation Act (Workers Compensation Act Amended)
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
Mr. Speaker: Order. The next item before the House is Bill 209, The Firefighters Compensation Act (Workers Compensation Act Amended). As some members may be aware, there is some duplication in subject matter between this bill and Bill 25, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act, a bill which has recently gone through the stages of second reading in the House.
There are certain
provisions in Beauchesne, as well as
Beauchesne Citation 624(3) provides that "There is no rule or custom which restrains the presentation of two or more bills relating to the same subject and containing similar provisions. But if a decision of the House has been taken on one such bill, for example, if the bill has been given or refused second reading, the other is not proceeded with if it contains substantially the same provisions and such a bill could not have been introduced on a motion for leave. But if a bill is withdrawn, after having made progress, another bill with the same objects may be proceeded with."
Our Rule 41 states, "No Member shall revive a debate already concluded during the session or anticipate a matter appointed for consideration of which notice has been given."
In addition, there are five rulings from Speaker Rocan from 1990 which indicate that it is procedurally improper to proceed with a bill on the Order Paper if a bill with a similar subject matter and intent has already been dealt with by the House.
I am raising this because of apparent similarities between Bill 209 and Bill 25, which has completed second reading in the House. In addition, consultation has been undertaken with the Clerk's office and with the Legislative Counsel office to further verify whether the bills have similar content. It was determined that, yes, the bills do have similar content, particularly regarding presumption regarding cancer and firefighters. Therefore, it is procedurally improper to permit debate on Bill 209.
The honourable Member for
The honourable Official Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Leonard Derkach
(Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on
a point of order, Bill 25 deals with some of the content that is in Bill
209, but we have indicated to the
government that we are more than supportive of The Firefighters
Compensation Act. Unfortunately, what the government has done, Mr. Speaker, is
it has included this part that we are in favour of with another aspect of The
Workers Compensation Act that has some concerns that have been raised by
citizens of
So therefore, this has
been a manipulation, if you like, by government to try to include something
that a lot of people would be in favour of with a fairly negative aspect of The
Workers Compensation Act as viewed by many citizens of
Mr. Speaker, it is for
this reason that the Member for
* (10:10)
Mr. Speaker, this is
something that firefighters, people who work for the good and safety of people
in
But, Mr. Speaker, we do acknowledge that this is a duplication from a part of Bill 25, and if there were leave in this Chamber, I am sure that we could deal with this legislation as well. With that, I end my point of order.
Hon. Steve Ashton (Deputy Government House Leader): On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, your ruling indeed is quite correct. There is a very good reason why one of the key elements of the parliamentary process is avoiding duplication of bills because members opposite do have the ability with any bill that is brought before this House to amend that bill. There is a bill dealing with workers compensation. If there are sections of that act that members do not support, they can either attempt to amend the act or they can vote against it.
There is indeed an irony with this because in 1989 when I, as workers compensation critic for the New Democratic caucus at the time, attempted to reinstate coverage for firefighters, at that time it was members of the then-Conservative government that blocked that, Mr. Speaker. This was 1989 when presumptive coverage could have been brought back into the province through legislation at the time that dealt with workers compensation in an amendment that was moved that the Conservatives blocked.
So, Mr. Speaker, your
ruling is not only correct, I would remind the members opposite that they have
every opportunity with the bill to vote against any and every section of the
bill. Indeed, I think many Manitobans would be very interested to see which
sections that improve workers compensation coverage for
So your ruling is quite correct, and if the members opposite disagree with sections of Bill 25, they should deal with Bill 25. This bill is indeed redundant and I sort of give the member credit for moving the bill. I am glad to see that all members in this House now accept presumptive coverage.
Dare I say the member is a new member, but I do take some interest in the fact that there is nothing like a convert in terms of members opposite who sat in power in the government for 11 years and blocked presumptive coverage, including in 1989 when a bill was before the Legislature and they said the bill would not pass, that it had presumptive coverage. They were prepared to kill the entire bill. So not only is there a history to that with the members opposite, history with sections of Bill 25, they can deal with that, but let us focus on Bill 25, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that your ruling was quite correct.
This is a redundant
resolution, Mr. Speaker, and indeed should either remain on the Order Paper or
should be withdrawn. I would be interested to hear what the Member for
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, before I rule on that, I just want to make something very clear to all members. The reason I was lenient and allowed a point of order to be heard is because to me this is a unique situation. I am sure all members in the House are fully aware that the Speaker's rulings are not up for debate. If members disagree, the option members have is to challenge it. They are not up for debate. But I was very lenient today because I know this is a unique situation, and I wanted the opportunity for both sides to be heard.
The honourable Member for Russell or the Official Opposition House Leader does not have a point of order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Russell, on a new point of order.
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, just simply to indicate that I thank you for giving me the opportunity to put those comments on the record with respect to Bill 209. We certainly respect your ruling and we can proceed. I think we will leave this bill as it is on the Order Paper for the time being.
Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for that. So Bill 209 will remain on the Order Paper.
Bill 210–The
Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets)
Mr. Speaker: Now we will move on to Bill 210, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Bicycle Helmets).
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for
Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 210. Put very simply, this bill
is about saving lives and about saving dollars. Both of these two are
particularly important for
Mr. Speaker, first of
all, let us be very clear that the evidence is substantial and the evidence
speaks volumes. There are now many provinces which have such legislation, which
would provide for the mandatory wearing of helmets when people are riding
bicycles. A very careful comparison was made between the provinces where there
is mandatory bicycle helmet legislation and those provinces, like
There is also a clear difference in terms of the number of deaths, that there were fewer deaths, on a proportional basis to population, in provinces with mandatory bicycle helmet legislation compared to those provinces which do not have mandatory bicycle helmet legislation. The evidence is clear: passing this bill will save lives and it will save injuries. That is why we should move on this.
As the Speaker and all the members know, there is a big push at the moment, so we are told by this government, for better wellness, for preventing people from becoming sick or injured. Here is a golden opportunity to do something about it. We are presenting this to all members of the House to act, and we hope that all members will act in concert to move this legislation forward.
I think it is important to note that we are not only saving lives and not only saving injuries, but the majority of the serious injuries on a bicycle for people who do not have helmets are head injuries. A head injury in a child can lead to lifelong difficulties and problems. I was told by a friend who is a physician of a child who he looked after, had such a bicycle injury, and he took a year to recover, but it was never a full recovery and there were lifelong impacts.
* (10:20)
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, as I have said at the beginning, this is about saving lives and about saving dollars, and the saving dollars is very important because one child prevented from having a serious head injury will save our health care system and our public taxpayer a million to a million and a half dollars over the course of the lifetime of that child. That is a very significant saving and cumulatively when we add that up with the number of people who come in with head injuries, and I do not have the number for head injuries specifically, but there were 170 people on average the last several years who have come in with injuries to hospitals in Manitoba, and of those it is about 100 who are children. We have used in this bill coverage for all ages because it is important that adults are modeling for children, and the experience in other provinces which have all-age legislation shows that it is much more effective.
Mr. Speaker, the time is
now to act on this legislation. For many years this government and the previous
government have said we can do this by education. Well, the fact is that
education alone has not worked. In
The effect of helmets is
very clear from many, many statistics that helmets save and protect from
serious head injury and they can make a difference. Mr. Speaker, this is like
the seat belt legislation that we already have in
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): I move, seconded by the Member for
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200–The Personal
Information
Protection Act
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second readings of public bills, Bill 200, The Personal Information Protection Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). What is the will of the House?
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there agreement for the bill to remain standing? [Agreed]
Bill 201–The Legislative
Assembly
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 201, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck).
What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill 202–The
Health Services Amendment and Health Services Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 202, The Health Services Amendment and Health Services Insurance Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minto (Mr. Swan).
What is the will of the House? Stand in the name of the honourable Member for Minto (Mr. Swan)? Agreed? [Agreed]
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): I would like to speak on Bill 202, putting some of my points on record. We fully support the principles of the Canada Health Act, which is unique and remains one of the most valued identities of being a Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, whenever the topic of health care debate comes, my emotions flare up. I witnessed in this Chamber some awful debates from the members opposite. It does bother me to see the desire and the hidden agenda from the members opposite to bring Americanization of Canadian medicine.
Let me put this on
record, Mr. Speaker, my own experience and sufferings on the agenda of health
care, which is being proposed or in an indirect way promoted by the opposition,
to have a private health care in
My brother, who was a
professor of sociology, died in 1995 waiting for his heart surgery. Because
there was a shortage of doctors, there was a shortage of nurses and there was a
shortage of health care professionals, the waiting list was too long. I would
like to say this, that my family would have sent my brother to the
Now, I am very proud to
see that we have, this government
has, implemented some of the recommendations by Doctor Koshal, and the wait time for radiation
therapy has been reduced only by one
week. I think that the number of MRIs performed in
I am very happy to see, Mr. Speaker, that we have not only increased the number of doctors' enrolment in the province, which was not seen properly during that period that they were trying to reduce the number of doctors. I do not know what was the conspiracy, what were the hidden motives behind it, but I must say it takes 10 years, a good 10 years, to train doctors. It takes a lot of time to train nurses.
I would also like to
share my own personal losses of my
family's enjoyment in this province. My daughter, she was a radiologist and was
trained here, a well-trained doctor. She is doing extremely well now in
* (10:30)
So the situation in that period of time, Mr. Speaker, was very, very bad. To see that positions were shortened, and naturally there was a hidden agenda to see if that thing would continue, people would prefer to have private health care. That is a fact. The members opposite are really smiling, but that is what happens if you do not have doctors, if you do not have nurses, if you reduce facilities, close hospitals, it takes time to build. It takes 10 years, a good 10 years to train a doctor to come and practise, particularly in a specialist, like radiologist, it might take a little more. I think that I have seen this kind of thing happening, and when I now see the trend being changed, where more doctors are being trained, rural hospitals are being recruited, statements have been made there are more doctors practising in Manitoba than those periods.
I think that this is very
important, Mr. Speaker, for us to understand that private health care does not give what is normally believed in
desperate situations and promoted by members opposite. I will also give
examples of–maybe the members would like to listen to this. My own family, my
sister lives in
Now, imagine the irony and agony with my sister's daughter, that she was forced to leave the hospital because it was not the decision by the doctors, it was not the decision by the hospital. It was the decision taken by the insurance company that dictates rules how you make the health care work. That kind of system we do not need in this country.
So I think that her
comments were, "I wish that my daughter was in
So, I think, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to say that we have seen things happening in this state,
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make here the discussions on for-profit health care is less efficient than not-for-profit health care. Quality of care is lower in for-profit facilities than in not-for-profit. For-profit health care does not guarantee access and is prone to cream-skimming. There are serious accountability issues with for-profit health care. These are some of the findings that one can go and look at in the academic results and academic findings, that private health care is not the only alternative that we can think.
Now I would also like to read a couple of points that I have been given in a note that is very obvious, and I would not, perhaps, repeat things that have already been said about the effect of private health care in society in terms of the delivery of services, quality of services, and the cost.
So I think the bottom line is here, Mr. Speaker, that if we need a society to prosper and live in a quality of life, the health care services are absolutely universal. It should not see the differences of who is poor, who is not poor. It should not see the differences of which class of people get service and society looks after and which class of people do not. So I think that the whole idea of trying to develop a parallel system that will destroy the health care, which is the only thing that Canadians feel very unique in the world today, that should not be destroyed.
The bottom line again, as I spoke, Mr. Speaker, is what we are doing now. Ten years, fifteen years from now the future generation will understand. If the trend goes, we will be able to sustain health care, universal health care policies and protect the Canada Health Act. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: Okay. When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minto (Mr. Swan).
Bill 203–The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 203, The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Mr. Cliff Cullen (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, it certainly will be a pleasure to put some words on the record this morning in regard to Bill 203, an amendment to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation. This is a very important piece of legislation which has been brought forward by the member from River East, and I think it is imperative that the government take notice of this very important piece of legislation. It does pertain to probably only a very few Manitobans, but I think it is a very beneficial piece to those particular individuals who can be impacted by certain claims that arise under the Personal Injury Protection Program.
As a person, as an individual who sold the
Manitoba Public Insurance product, or Autopac as we know it in
When we sell this particular product to
Manitobans, we hope that we have the trust in that particular product that we
are selling, that when a need arises for someone in
So in this particular case, it was a married individual and the
individual became disabled and was also receiving a Canada Pension upon
disability. After the accident, she was compensated through Manitoba Public
Insurance for her disability. After that, of course, there was a split-up in
the marriage. Of course, after that fact, then there was a clawback taken back
from Manitoba Public Insurance. So it is a situation that is not going to arise
a lot in
So we think, from our side of the House, it is imperative that Manitobans are treated with respect when it comes to claims. Obviously, through the Personal Injury Protection Program, they expect to be compensated adequately. Clearly, there is a bit of a flaw in the current legislation that allows this clawback to take place. So we think this is clearly a very, very important piece of legislation. I know my colleagues, as insurance brokers across the province who sell this particular product, really want to have the trust and the faith in the system that will develop and provide a very fair and equitable insurance product to Manitobans.
* (10:40)
I think the onus is on
the corporation and the Province to make sure that these individuals are
treated in a fair manner and, certainly, I am glad that the member from River
East was able to bring this very important legislation forward. Again, it will
only impact a certain number, a very few number, of people throughout
So it really is, I think, Mr. Speaker, a justice issue, and Bill 203 really, really deals with a fundamental right of all Manitobans to be properly insured against, and I think when it comes to resolving claims Manitoba Public Insurance really has an onus to resolve claims fairly to all Manitobans and we certainly hope that this bill will help address one of the flaws in the current legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask for your consent to move Bill 203 forward. Hopefully, we can move this bill to committee directly, and if we can have consent from the opposite side of the House to move this bill forward to the committee stage, I think it would be a benefit for all Manitobans. So we certainly would like to see this bill moved forward to committee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, if I might, I want to put a
few words on the record in agreement with the Member for
I just wish the member was here when the Manitoba Telephone System was sold off, Mr. Speaker. He could have given a similar speech and talk about the values and the benefits of public ownership of another Crown corporation. I am reminded that recently in Saskatchewan, where the telephone system is still owned by the people of the province of Saskatchewan, the publicly owned telephone system in Saskatchewan recently paid a dividend to the province of $88 million, $88 million, that went back into the Treasury of the Government of Saskatchewan, which would help pay for each of the promises that these Conservatives are standing up every day in this House and demanding.
Every day they stand up
in this House, one after another, and they say, "Spend more money on this,
spend more money on that, pave this road, pave that road, build this high
school, build this underpass." Every single one. They stand up every day
in this House and they demand. But what if we still had dividends from the
Crown corporations like they do in
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker,
I received a letter from Bonnie Staples-Lyon, about a month ago, informing me,
as the MLA for Selkirk, that the Manitoba Telephone System is removing another
25 jobs from Selkirk and putting those jobs in
So I am glad we are able to talk today about the value of the public ownership of certain services provided to Manitobans, Mr. Speaker. I encourage members opposite, when they stand up to speak to this bill, that they also speak about MTS and the scandal that that was with the sale of MTS. Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Any other speakers? Okay? When this matter is again before the House, it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg).
Bill
204–The Audiologists and Speech
Language Pathologists Act
Mr. Speaker: We will move on to Bill 204, The Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Arthur-Virden, who has five minutes remaining.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): It is my privilege to put a few more words in regard to Bill 204 on the record here today, The Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists Act, that I began speaking on last week, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately was cut off by the clock in regard to our procedures.
Mr. Speaker, I was just
mentioning at that time that the Legislative Counsel of
I want to just say that I hope that as we move forward on this bill that it can be a unanimous vote, Mr. Speaker, that it gets that kind of support because this association has done its due diligence in regard to first contacting the government in '03 in regard to bringing this type of legislation forward. Miss McKietuik indicated to the government in '04 that after it was not put on that agenda, she was disappointed that it might have to wait until the fall of '04.
A letter from the deputy minister himself at that time addressed to Miss McKietuik indicated that, and I will just quote it, "I am writing to advise that due to the volume of proposed legislation from across the government, your proposal that is to appeal and replace The Manitoba Speech and Hearing Association Act is among a number of proposals from the department that have not been approved to proceed in 2003-4 legislative session. Manitoba Health will submit your legislative proposal for consideration for the 2004-5 legislative agenda. If approved to proceed, the proposed amendments would not likely be considered by the Legislature before spring 2005." End of the letter to her, Mr. Speaker, by the Deputy Minister, Mr. Sussman, at the time.
So I only bring that to
the attention of the Speaker and the House because, of course, for some reason,
as I mentioned earlier, it may have been an oversight by this government, they
did not bring this legislation forward. That is very clearly a type of
legislation that is parallel to many other professional conduct acts throughout
the
Mr. Speaker, I want to–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Arthur-Virden has the floor.
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, I guess the only request that I would have then of this House is that in order to move this bill forward, I would certainly like to see this bill moved on to committee to hear from those in Manitoba who would wish to make presentation on it. I believe that the association itself is the only body that is listed to speak at it, and I am sure that they are being in favour of it, I could ask the House's unanimous support. We could pass this bill right now.
So I would request the
House that would it be possible to
pass this bill and bring forward unanimous support for this legislation on
behalf of the Manitoba Speech and Hearing Association in the
* (10:50)
Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): I move, seconded by the Member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be now adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 205–The Legislative
Assembly
Amendment Act (Set Date
Elections)
Mr. Speaker: Bill 205, The Legislative Assembly Amendment Act (Set Date Elections), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Interlake.
Bill 207–The Medical
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Okay, we will move on to Bill 207, The Medical Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for St. James (Ms. Korzeniowski). What is the will of the House? Stand? [Agreed]
Bill
208–The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Grandparent Access)
Mr. Speaker: Bill 208, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act (Grandparent Access), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell), who has eight minutes remaining. It is denied? Okay, it is denied.
Mr. Jack Reimer (Southdale): Mr. Speaker, I just want to put some words on the record in regard to the recommendation that we move this on to committee. It is Bill 208, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act, that was brought forth by the member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat).
Mr. Speaker, the reason for bringing forth the bill was that the member and other members in caucus have been lobbied by grandparents because of the unfortunate situation that does sometime occur where grandparents are denied access to see their grandchildren. I think that in general terms I think everybody would sympathize with that situation because of the fact that the family unit is very, very important. I think that the family unit is something that both sides of the House respect and have advanced in a sense of trying to get this cleared so that there is access to the grandchildren.
Mr. Speaker, sometimes there are unfortunate situations that happen in families, whether it is family break-up or the unfortunate loss of a loved one or mother or father, and the children are left with the other spouse. Situations overtake the family where some of the grandparents, they may be shuffled off to the side, if you want to call it, in a sense, because of a new direction that the family takes in the upbringing of the children, and the grandparents are then denied the access to see their grandchildren. They want to have the ability to see them, to have contact with them and to share a lot of the love that they still have for their grandchildren. So it becomes very, very difficult at times for the grandparents to have access.
I know there have been other speakers on this bill that have talked about the bill. In fact, members of the government have spoken on this bill, and in general terms I think that they have indicated that they are of the similar opinion that having access is very, very important. They have talked about maybe reintroducing the bill under their purview.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have the opportunity now with this bill to look at it in a very serious manner. The government has had the time to look at the bill, to study the bill. I understand that even one of the members, the Member for Minto (Mr. Swan), had an opportunity to meet with the grandparents. He has expressed a concern because of not only his involvement as a member of the Legislature but as to his profession of being involved with the family courts as a lawyer and his exposure to a lot of the things that unfortunately happen with families where you have family break-up and you have family situations that sometimes tear families apart. The children are left sometimes, unfortunately, as pawns. That is a very crude word to use in a sense, but they are used sometimes in settlements and in directions, and grandparents are the ones that unfortunately have to bear the brunt of not being able to have access to their children. It becomes a burden on them to, you know, see them.
As I mentioned, the Member for Minnedosa (Mrs. Rowat) has done a lot of research and consultation with grandparents' groups. We have met with them. We have had the opportunity to share some of their concerns and some of the stories, Mr. Speaker, really are very touching and sometimes very hard to listen to because of the concerns that grandparents have had in not being able to access their children. They are asking for the courts to give them that ability. We agree with that. We think that it is important that there is a vehicle or an access program available for them to get to see their grandchildren.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are of the opinion that this bill should be passed on to committee. We believe that, with the proposal of possibly rising in the next short while, we do have the opportunity to have the ability to take this to committee, to hear presenters, to bring it back and to pass it so that we do have the ability before the summer break and the summertime activities so that there can be ability to visit.
So, with those words, Mr. Speaker, I would recommend that this bill now go to committee. Thank you very much.
Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am speaking on this amendment because it is an issue with which I am familiar. When I was the official opposition critic for Family Services I met with the GRAND organization and with individual grandparents who were denied access to their grandchildren. I heard many sad stories from grandparents who could no longer visit or even have contact with their grandchildren.
We need to ask why does this happen. Why are grandparents denied access to their grandchildren? I believe that most often it is because the son or daughter of the grandparents is involved in an access dispute or possibly a maintenance dispute. The result is that access is denied to the ex-partner or ex-spouse. In my view, these former partners are using their children to try to punish their former partner. The grandparents are then dragged into this situation in the same way and are also denied visiting rights.
I have a personal history
of involvement in this issue. I think it is interesting and instructive and so
I am going to share it in some detail. My summer appointment by the
In summary, the program was to arrange supervised visits or access for children of estranged parents who could not work out their own arrangements. Social workers or lawyers or others who knew about this program would refer estranged parents to us. We would begin by asking one parent how many hours a week of access they desired. Then we would phone the ex-partner and ask that person, usually the custodial parent, how many hours a week he or she would agree to. This required numerous phone calls back and forth until a compromise was reached.
Frequently, the issue of maintenance would come up. The custodial parent would say that she, for example, did not want to allow any visits because her ex-partner was not paying maintenance for his children. We would reply that the two were not linked and that the father had a legal right to access or visits to his children. In fact, we would say that if she allowed access, then that would take away his rationale for not making maintenance payments.
Similarly, when we spoke to the children's father, he would say that he was not paying maintenance because he was denied access. We would tell him that he had a legal obligation to pay maintenance regardless of access, but if he paid maintenance, then his ex-wife could not use that as an excuse to deny access. Sometimes these suggestions were followed and sometimes they were not.
Once we had achieved agreement between the former partners on the number of hours and times of access, we would inform their lawyers. The reaction of the lawyers was typically, "My client agreed to what?" Then we would explain that this was a compromise and that both parties had agreed. The lawyers usually came on board fairly quickly because this is a practice of law which is very difficult and time consuming. Family law lawyers frequently get phone calls when the access, if it existed in the first place, broke down because access was denied or a visit lasted too long and the children were not returned when they were supposed to. So the lawyers knew that if the new arrangement worked out, they would not be getting any phone calls, and this they appreciated. Once the lawyers agreed, I wrote up the agreement, and the estranged parents and I went to family court and presented it–
* (11:00)
Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House, the honourable Member for Burrows will have 12 minutes remaining.
The hour being 11 a.m., we will now move on to resolutions.
RESOLUTIONS–DRAW SELECTION
Mr. Speaker: Resolution No. 2, in the name of the honourable Member for Brandon East on wind energy.
Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha), the bill on wind energy. I am proud to speak for a few moments to this bill. The entire resolution I will read.
WHEREAS promoting and facilitating the orderly development of energy resources, I move, seconded by–[interjection] I have already done that–the Member for Radisson. [interjection] That is right.
I move, seconded by the Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha),
WHEREAS promoting and facilitating the orderly development of energy resources, ensuring a reliable and low cost supply of energy to consumers, and promoting conservation and efficient energy use in accordance with sustainable development principles are the objectives of the Province of Manitoba; and
WHEREAS the investment into a diversification of energy production–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Caldwell: Dispense?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Caldwell: –will ensure that these principles are upheld; and
WHEREAS the production of wind energy is one means whereby the diversification of energy will be ensured as it builds upon the province's current means of energy production, that is hydroelectricity; and
WHEREAS producing and
utilizing wind energy in
WHEREAS using wind energy requires new technologies, products and services could provide economic opportunities for Manitoba companies and new high-technology jobs and potentially enhance Manitoba's economic development; and
WHEREAS preliminary assessments are currently being conducted by Manitoba Hydro, so as to identify ideal sites to locate potential wind turbines for generating electricity.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider continuing to promote and facilitate the orderly development of energy resources by the investment in research, specifically research regarding wind energy production, so as to diversity the energy production in Manitoba in accordance with sustainable development principles.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell), seconded by the honourable Member for Radisson (Mr. Jha),
WHEREAS promoting–
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: All those in favour of–okay, I will read it. [interjection] Order.
WHEREAS promoting and facilitating the orderly development of energy resources, ensuring a reliable and low cost supply of energy to consumers, and promoting conservation and efficient energy use in accordance with sustainable development principles are the objectives of the province of Manitoba;
WHEREAS the investment into a diversification of energy production will ensure that these principles are upheld; and
WHEREAS the production of wind energy is one means whereby the diversification of energy will be ensured as–[interjection] Order. You asked it to be read. You should be able to listen to it. [interjection] Order.
–it builds upon the province's current means of energy production, that is hydroelectricity; and [interjection] Order.
WHEREAS producing and
utilizing wind energy in
WHEREAS using wind energy requires new technologies, products and services could provide economic opportunities for Manitoba companies and new high-technology jobs and potentially enhance Manitoba's economic development; and
WHEREAS preliminary assessments are currently being conducted by Manitoba Hydro, so as to identify ideal sites to locate potential wind turbines for generating electricity. [interjection] Order.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider continuing to promote and facilitate the orderly development of energy resources by the investment in research, specifically research regarding wind energy production, so as to diversify the energy production in Manitoba in accordance with sustainable development principles.
Mr. Caldwell: Mr. Speaker, I think after that very eloquent restating of the bill, it really speaks for itself. So I know that there are other colleagues of mine who wish to speak on this bill. I am very proud to be part of this resolution. I am proud to be a member of a government that is investing in alternative forms of energy. It is something that is very important for economic development in the province. It is something that is very important for keeping Hydro as being a leader in the world in terms of electricity provision. It assists in what I think is one of the greatest legacies and contributing to one of the greatest legacies in this province for all Manitobans, and that is our energy resources which far into the future will benefit all Manitobans.
Before I sit down I should remind everybody in this House as well as Manitobans that another resource that would have helped us at the dawn of the information technology age, at the beginning of a new revolution in telecommunications, something that was historically of benefit to all Manitobans and which is now lost to all Manitobans, the Manitoba Telecom system was sold off by members opposite in one of the most shameful acts that has ever taken place in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.
So, with those words, with the restating, Mr. Speaker, of the resolution by yourself, with my initial stating of it, I will thank Jason Woywada for giving me the opportunity to do this resolution and allow my colleagues to speak. Thank you.
Ms. Bonnie Korzeniowski,
Acting Speaker, in the Chair
Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): I welcome the opportunity to put some comments on the record regarding this resolution, but I think we need to look at the track record and the past history of this government when it comes to energy in the province of Manitoba. We have seen many, many examples of how this government has mismanaged the energy resources that presently exist today, and I only have to make reference to Manitoba Hydro and the increase of Hydro rates by 10 percent in this last year under this government's watch.
Madam Acting Chair, we need to go back to the whole issue of the dividend that this government took from Manitoba Hydro and look at what the end result of that raid on Manitoba Hydro was. We have a government that was so desperate for money despite the significant increases in transfers that they have received from the federal government, over a billion dollars more, and yet they forced and demanded that Manitoba Hydro turn over to them over $200 million in order to satisfy their spending addiction. We saw as a result of that that Manitoba Hydro was forced to borrow the money to pay the government and on top of the $203 million that they raided from Manitoba Hydro coffers, Madam Acting Speaker, they also doubled the water rental rates and the debt guarantee fee. We saw, as a result, Manitoba Hydro having to borrow over $400 million and pay interest on that money so that this government could spend, and continue to spend, out of control.
* (11:10)
Well, we know, also, that when they took that dividend, the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Chomiak), the Premier (Mr. Doer), the head of Manitoba Hydro stood up and said, "We will not need to increase rates." And even though there was the threat of a drought at that time, Madam Acting Speaker, this government stood time after time after time in this House and indicated that they would not have to raise rates as a result of a drought, that Manitoba Hydro was always prepared and there would be no increase in rates as a result of a drought and that Hydro could manage this raid.
Well, Madam Acting Speaker, what happened? What happened? We went through a very significant drought, and we found then that Manitoba Hydro said, "Oops, we do not have enough money to cover the results of the devastating drought. We are going to have to go to the Public Utilities Board and raise Hydro rates."
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): Order, please. I am sure that the honourable member is going to come around to a little more relevancy to the–I trust that you are going to work this back, I think.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Well, Madam Acting Speaker, this is very relevant to the resolution that is in front of us, because the resolution, in its first WHEREAS, indicates "WHEREAS promoting and facilitating the orderly development of energy resources, ensuring a reliable and low-cost supply of energy to consumers and promoting conservation and efficient energy use in accordance with sustainable development principles are the objectives of the province of Manitoba."
Well, Madam Acting
Speaker, when we talk about promoting and facilitating the orderly development
of energy resources, ensuring a reliable and low-cost supply of energy to
consumers, we have not seen the reliable and low-cost supply of energy to
consumers over the past under this government. When they arbitrarily raided
Manitoba Hydro and forced the cost of energy to the ratepayers in the
Madam Acting Speaker, this is very relevant to the first WHEREAS in the resolution that has been put forward today. We had many warnings that this government and its wrong-headed policy to take money from Manitoba Hydro has led to what we are seeing today. No longer is the cost of hydro as low as it should be, but we are seeing people on fixed incomes today having to pay 10% more on their Hydro bills as a direct result of actions that this government has taken and policies that they have implemented that have harmed the bottom line of our public utility, which is Manitoba Hydro.
Madam Acting Chair, there were many, many articles in the paper, many, many questions asked of this government, but they pushed ahead and did what they thought they should be doing, and as an end result, Manitoba Hydro ratepayers are having to take more money out of their pockets to feed the spending habits of this out-of-control government, this mismanaged government.
I believe that Manitobans will remember the way they have been treated. Also, when we talk about sustainability and we talk about environmentally friendly development of our energy resources, we only have to go back to what happened with previous Hydro development in the North.
I have had the opportunity to speak to people in the North who have indicated very clearly that they have concerns on how this government is pressing ahead with Hydro development in the North when they have not addressed the issues from the devastation that those communities faced as a result of former Hydro development.
Madam Acting Chair, many, many in those communities are saying that Hydro and the government today have not addressed the issues that we have. They are looking to force and move ahead without consultation, without addressing the issues that have been raised by many northerners.
I know members of the New Democratic Party, those that are sitting on the government side of the House today, may laugh at the plight of those that are living in communities where there is 90% unemployment, where they do not have the ability to provide for their families on a day-to-day basis as a result of the devastation that they faced through previous Hydro development. It is not a laughing matter. It is a very serious issue. These people feel disenfranchised. They do not believe that this government is listening to what they are saying. They do not believe that their issues have been addressed.
We have many, many individuals living in poverty today as a result of the significant flooding which changed their ability to work and to make a living and to provide food on the table for their families. Madam Acting Chair, this is a very serious issue. It is an issue that many, many northerners and many communities have raised with this government. They do not believe that the process that is being followed on new energy development–
Point of Order
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood):
On a point of order, the member should know that
this resolution is about wind development and should recognize that the good
wind farm development sites are in southern
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): The Member for River East, on the same point of order.
Mrs. Mitchelson: On the same point of order, again, this shows the arrogance of a government who, because of past Hydro development under their watch, many, many Manitobans are feeling like their concerns have not been addressed.
When we talk about future energy development and we talk about this government's plans and initiatives, we have to look to the past and we have to discuss seriously what Manitobans have said about the direction that–
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): Order. It is my opinion that the member from Elmwood did have a point of order, and I would again encourage the Member for River East to please keep her comments more relevant to the issue.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Ms.
Korzeniowski): The Member for
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
* (11:20)
I guess I would challenge the ruling of the Chair that she has made because I believe that she was absolutely relevant.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): The Chair has been challenged.
Voice Vote
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): All those in favour of the ruling of the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): All those against, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): In my view, the Yeas have it.
* * *
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): The honourable Member for River East, to continue her remarks.
Formal Vote
Mrs. Mitchelson (River East): Thank you, Madam Chair, but with all due respect, I would like to challenge your ruling.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): The ruling of the Chair has been challenged and sustained.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I would like a recorded vote, please.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Korzeniowski): A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Mr. Speaker: Order. A division has been called, and under our
So we will defer this vote to the next private members' hour and the honourable Member for River East has the floor and she has three minutes remaining.
* (11:30)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to read some comments into the record that have been made by those individuals who have felt that Manitoba Hydro and the government have not properly addressed past damages from the Churchill River Diversion. They are using tactics that are distasteful to claimants who are looking for just claim payment from this government and from Manitoba Hydro. They have stated very clearly that they do not believe that this government, when it comes to energy development in the province, takes into consideration the needs of those who have been disenfranchised.
Mr. Speaker, I listened
very carefully to those who told their stories about what devastation has
happened as a result of this government's unwillingness to deal in a fair and
appropriate fashion with them and with their communities. We have many today in
Mr. Speaker, I do want to indicate that we have seen a disaster by this government when it comes to policy on energy and energy development. I know that those who are involved in the wind farming initiatives that could do very good things for communities within our province, we will have to watch very carefully as they negotiate and work with this government because we have seen the track record of this government. Thank you.
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin
Flon): I would like to put a few words on record
regarding the resolution from the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell) on the
wind farm in St.
I would like to take exception to some of the words, though, as spoken by the member from River East, particularly when she suggests that there is widespread disagreement with our energy policy in northern Manitoba. I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that there were some negatives of the Churchill Diversion. There is no doubt about it. There was fallout, and there was not total agreement with the Northern Flood Agreement.
But I would point out that the proposed high-level dam under the Tories before Schreyer was elected would have created much, much, much more damage. Mr. Schreyer, in fact, can be quoted as saying, "I was halfway up the mountain when I was elected in 1969. I had a choice to go with the Tories high-level dam which would have created enormous damage or go with a much lower-level dam which is eventually what we did."
So I think, in fact, that the Member for River East is not being entirely correct when she says that we are responsible for major damage as if they would not have created major damage. Their damage would have been much, much worse. I am not trying to whitewash this. There were some and there still are some problems.
I am actually quite happy
that the member from River East is concerned about the job rate in northern
I do not understand why
the Member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson) would suggest that that is a
negative. It would be very positive for Aboriginal people and northern people
in the North. It creates jobs, but, back to the point of the resolution. I was
listening to an environmental engineer that was on the Discovery channel the
other day. Her name was Dr. Cristina Archer. She is an environmental engineer at
She came to the startling
conclusion that there is 35 times as much wind power out there as we actually
can use right now, which was rather a startling discovery. We could harness
that if we were to be very aggressive in using that wind power, using
present-day technology. Mr. Speaker, I have seen a number of wind power turbines
in
Also, I would like to point out that they used to have half-a-megawatt turbines. Now, they are up to, I think, at least two megawatt turbines, or even three, an honourable member says. It is clean energy, it is green energy, it is environmentally friendly energy, it is renewable energy, and I think that this province is very blessed to have that kind of availability of free power.
Now I know that, because we are also blessed with lots of water, usually, our hydro power is cheaper, and that is why we are building Wuskwatim and Keeyask and, eventually, Conawapa, but it is useful to have a back-up system, to have the insurance, and we do have that insurance when we have wind power. Sometimes you have dry years, and wind power could help us out. Even if the years are not that dry, it is still good to have that insurance, that back-up. We know that water usually flows, unless it is a very, very dry year, whereas wind does not always blow. In fact, Doctor Archer said on average wind blows 13 percent of the time. So if you wanted wind power to be more effective, you would have to hook up different wind farms, so when the wind blows in one region, you could use it when it is not blowing in another region. So that is one way you could get around the problem of the unreliability of wind, the fact that it does not always blow when you want it to blow.
Anyway, this province is
very blessed to have both wind power, and, in fact,we are one of the best in
Sixty-three Vesta wind
turbines are slated to be built. Some of them are already built at 1.65
megawatts per unit. It is an exciting project. It expands our renewable energy
portfolio. It diversifies our energy mix and thus our financial risks are also
diminished, particularly in dry years. It puts dollars into rural
As I said before, it is
clean. It is renewable energy.
* (11:40)
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste.
Rose): Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I want to put a
few comments on the record around this resolution. My concern is based on the
fact that I am all in favour of looking at alternative energy sources, but I do
believe–if I were my friends from the NDP caucus, I would hold my applause,
because there is an honesty factor that the public, I think, believes that we
should consider. That is, right now, we are in an enviable position in terms of expenditure of dollars. Under
the
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy
Speaker, in the Chair
I will not forget that when I asked the current president of Manitoba Hydro how it would be that seeing as how hydro power had a history, or pardon me, wind power had a history of being a little bit more expensive in terms of when you finally get it in place and you have the switching capacity and so on, how it would be that Hydro would go down that route, he said, "Don't worry, I'll be signing the deal," the implication being that he would not sign a bad deal for Manitoba Hydro. I accept his word although "trust me" leaves me feeling a little cold, Mr. Deputy Chair.
So let us have some
up-front discussion about investments of this nature. It seems to me that
nuclear energy has been examined and thrown out and re-examined and thrown out
and considered many different times, particularly again in this province.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, as we move into what is predicted to be, and I think undoubtedly will be, an energy shortage future on the North American continent, looking at these alternatives is worthwhile. But the government of the day needs to be called to attention, not only on the matter that I just raised but on a second matter of policy. It is directly related to a lot of the type of land that people in the area I represent have to live and work with and that is Crown lands. Government needs to have a policy in what it is doing around Crown lands because if it truly is looking to expand opportunities in this area, some of the significant opportunity lands on Crown land and some of it lands on Crown land that is already under lease. There are people who have now and are second-and third-generation leaseholders of these Crown properties that are excellent generation sites for wind power.
I am assured by the government that they are working on this, but I think it bears and I will use this opportunity to put it on the record, that they need to move expeditiously in this area or the very opportunities that they are promoting and are supporting may be lost. I look to the government, and I say that one of the things that is available out there is a compromise, is that yes, you must not be setting precedent because someone has a lease on a piece of property that it may benefit from capital expenditure. On the other hand, if we truly believe in the developmental opportunity in this province, perhaps we need to be more generous with the sales of Crown land. I find that the sales of Crown land under this government have just about dried up. I find that really troubling, but that in itself is not the issue. The issue is where some of the Crown lands are situated and have wind power generating potential because of their locations.
The government has the final say. The public certainly will acknowledge that, but I want to say on behalf of my constituents that those who are holders of leases on those Crown lands, in some cases back to homesteader days, they never had an incentive to buy the land when they could lease it, but it is very much part of their ongoing operations. It is very much an important part of their lifestyle. So they start to take an ownership protective approach to how they manage that land. That is good for wildlife; it is good for resources. But if the government cannot develop a policy that recognizes in some fashion that they have a fiduciary feeling of responsibility about this land, it may be more difficult than it should be for the government to develop some of this potential power.
I promised my colleagues I would keep my comments short, Mr. Speaker, and I will leave it there.
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to this resolution brought forward by the Member for Brandon East (Mr. Caldwell).
I want to say at the
outset that in this particular project in St.
You know, when we opened
the site a few months ago, it was a very windy day in southern
The members are up here
criticizing the government, criticizing the member for a resolution that, in
fact, benefits their constituencies. If you understand the wind power studies,
you know that the good sites are in southern
I would like to say, Mr.
Deputy Speaker, that this is a very good project and I think that we should be
supporting local development. We should be supporting wind power. Wind power is
a developing energy source and it is something that you see widely now in
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we
could have been 10 years ahead of where we are now. The
Manitoba Hydro is developing, is putting forward the services to identify the sites, to test the wind, to run the power poles to the site. It is doing its part and the private sector are involved here developing this. Now I personally would encourage Manitoba Hydro for future developments to be doing them themselves, but I recognize that they want to take advantage of expertise in the area and they have developed a private partnership in this particular situation.
But I can tell you that
in
* (11:50)
So I think the economics
are there, even though the cost of power is,
In
We are now up to
three-megawatt machines, but I think the ones that are up now, are usually
about one and a half megawatts. I was in one, through one last year in
The price of power is not going to go down. Long term, the price of power is not going to go down, it is only going to go up and so this is an area that I think we have wasted a little too much time. The Tories wasted 11 years, we played catch up here. We are in the field and they should be supporting these developments. They should follow the Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan) and start working in their own areas to get more of these sites, not standing here criticizing what we are doing and just making negative comments about the government.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I find it interesting, listening to the members opposite regarding their own resolution. First of all, it appears that they are filibustering their own resolution. However, I think I want to look at the resolution here. What I find interesting is that they are talking about, in their WHEREAS, the second sentence there, or line, rather, is "low cost supply of energy."
Now, I could speak for a long time about that one, where this was a government who said that they would not raise the price of hydro. What did they do? First of all, they stole, it sort of reminds me a little bit of the Gomery, very close to same amount of money, around $260 million from Manitoba Hydro, they took out of there–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Dyck: Well, okay, it hits a little bit of a sore nerve, does it not? But
that is the point, taking money out of
What is happening to the Hydro rates? Under this government, what is happening to Hydro rates? The Hydro rates are going up, sort of the same promise that was made towards tuition freeze, right? What happened there? You do not fund. My goodness, and then you have got to eat your words. Well, you would not want to use that term, would you?
The other comment I
wanted to make, and I want to allow the Member for
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do, though, want to talk about the benefits of wind energy and especially the fact that there are a number of these windmills that are being put up in my constituency in Pembina. In fact, it is the reeve of the R.M. of Pembina, or he is currently the reeve, but they are putting up several of these wind farms on his property. Certainly, as an individual, he is benefiting by that, as is the R.M.
But the other correction that we need to put on the record is the fact that this government is not putting money into these wind farms. This is all private money that is going into there. So they are trying to honour the fact that they are the ones that were the big initiators on this. It was these companies who were out there doing all the research. So, is it good that they are buying the energy, that Manitoba Hydro is buying the energy from these wind farms? Absolutely. But we need to have the correct information on the record.
So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to conclude by saying that, certainly, when we can look at other sources of energy, that is positive. We need to do that.
However, I just thought of one other point I need to put on the record, and that is the ethanol, the way this government continued to tout ethanol. Where is it at? Tell me, where are all the new projects they were going to have? [interjection] Well, yes, another press announcement. I cannot believe it. So, anyway, they keep going on and on. There is a lot of wind that is being exerted by some of the comments that are being put on the record by the members opposite. However, I believe that we need to look at other sources of energy. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
Our hope is that the
government of the day does not stand in the road of future developments
with this particular industry. We do
believe that there is certainly opportunity for further development in wind
energy. I know I have people in my particular constituency who are looking at
development. Now, we do know that there is money there. We do have private
companies who are willing to come to invest in
We do believe it can be a
great economic benefit for rural
Of course, part of this
whole process with Manitoba Hydro is some kind of a secretive deal was made with the private corporations. To
our knowledge, we have not seen the contract for the purchase of this hydro. If
we would just know what kind of a deal was struck with Manitoba Hydro and some
of these private individuals, it might give
some more private companies a chance to do some expansion in terms of
economic activity in
We do have some concern
about the mismanagement of this government. Obviously, we are seeing that on a
daily basis. We have so many issues to raise with the government of the day.
Again, we are really concerned that the government of the day will stand in the
road of economic progress in
Clearly, I know the
Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) is coming through the growing pains of
reorganizing her department. We do want to see some economic development
options take place in rural
Again, Mr. Speaker, the
member from Pembina also talked about the ethanol activity. We have had many
promises over the years on ethanol, and it just has not come to fruition yet.
So, again, we encourage the government to look at all types of energy options
for
* (12:00)
Mr. Speaker, I think it
would be wonderful for the government to really review what they have got here
on paper and actually take it to heart and make some progress in that regard.
We talked about energy rates in
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is next before the House, the
honourable Member for
The hour being twelve noon, this Deputy Speaker is leaving the Chair with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 1:30 p.m.