LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
November 21,
2005
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYER
Hon. Stan Struthers (Minister of Conservation): I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 4, The Dangerous Goods Handling and Transportation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la manutention et le transport des marchandises dangereuses, be now read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Struthers: Bill 4
contains a number of amendments to The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Act to improve industry regulation, public safety and
environmental quality. These changes will reinforce the polluter-pay principle
and harmonize
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): I wish to present the following petition.
These are the reasons for the petition:
A severe windstorm swept through the Rural Municipality of Piney on July 31, 2005, causing severe damage to approximately 60 residential properties of the Sandilands forest.
The R.M. of Piney was forced to declare an immediate state of emergency in response to this storm.
The estimated cost of cleanup is estimated to be between $360,000 and $1 million.
The R.M. of Piney can only afford to allocate $20,000 toward the recovery and cleanup effort.
Individual property owners and residents have been forced to incur significant costs related to the cleanup of their property, which they cannot afford.
The
Provincial road restrictions in this area are limiting the access of vehicles required in the cleanup and recovery effort.
The R.M. of Piney has contacted the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Lemieux), the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Smith) and the Premier (Mr. Doer) to request temporary lifting of the road restrictions and the provision of provincial aid for the cleanup of the area but has received no commitment for assistance.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider the temporary lifting of road restrictions on the road in the storm-affected areas of the R.M. of Piney.
To request the Premier of Manitoba to consider providing aid to the R.M. of Piney and to the individual property owners to assist with the cleanup and the recovery efforts.
* (13:35)
This petition is signed by Peter Myrchak, Rose Henrie and Victoria Myskiw and many, many others.
Mr. Speaker: In accordance with our Rule 132(6), when petitions are read they are deemed to be received by the House.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): I wish to present the following petition to the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.
These are the reasons for this petition:
Insulin pumps cost over $6,500.
The cost of diabetes to the
Good blood sugar control reduces or eliminates kidney failure by 50 percent, blindness by 76 percent, nerve damage by 60 percent, cardiac disease by 35 percent and even amputations.
Diabetes is an epidemic in our province and will become an unprecedented drain on our struggling health care system if we do not take action now.
The benefit of having an insulin pump is it allows the person living with this life-altering disease to obtain good control of their blood sugar and become much healthier, complication-free individuals.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Premier (Mr. Doer) of
Signed by Carla Hatherly, Brian Hatherly, Krista Kastner and many, many others.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The background to this petition is as follows:
The Manitoba Government was made aware of serious problems involving the Crocus Fund back in 2001.
As a direct result of the government ignoring the red flags back in 2001, over 33 000 Crocus investors lost over $60 million.
The relationship between some union leaders, the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the NDP seems to be the primary reason as for why the government ignored the red flags.
We petition the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba as follows:
To request the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba to consider the need to seek clarification on why the government did not act on fixing the Crocus Fund back in 2001.
Signed by Lorraine Chyzzy, Gabrielle Wozniewich, Julia Pannell and many, many others.
Mr. Speaker: I am pleased to table in accordance with section 16(3) at 28 of The Auditor General Act, the Auditor's Report of Environmental Audits.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral
Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the
public gallery where we have with us from
Also in the public
gallery we have with us today fourth year nursing students from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you here today.
Gang Prosecutions
Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in 1999, this NDP government had
available to it a state-of-the-art courthouse, the
* (13:40)
My question, Mr. Speaker, is to the
Premier. Why did this Premier order the gang courthouse mothballed in 1999 when
he knew that it was going to be needed in
Hon. Gary Doer (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would refer the member opposite to Madam Krindle's court decision in the, I believe it was post '99, but it was certainly in the period of time under which the courthouse was developed on Chevrier Avenue, just off McGillivray, I believe.
I also would point out to the member
opposite that there have been other cases in
The renovation to an existing courtroom that is attached to the existing Remand Centre is a much more cost-effective way of proceeding, and it has nothing to do with–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Maybe, Mr. Speaker, members opposite that were in Cabinet want to study how many sheriff's officers, how many security staff, how many vehicles, how many other operating costs were necessary to operate the Chevrier house facility. This courtroom upgrade, that does not just deal with multi-accused personnel, also is adjacent to the Winnipeg Remand Centre, a lot more secure a setting for all concerned.
Mr. Murray: Well, the Premier likes to make reference and asks us to think about what took place when he talks about making reference. I would like the First Minister to reference, and since he has been the Premier, since 1999 we have seen the Hells Angels move in, the Bandidos, the Mad Cowz, the African Mafia. They have all taken root under this Premier's watch. Why, Mr. Speaker? Because gangs know that, under this NDP Premier, this government is soft on crime.
Mr. Speaker, we know that there are issues
involved with the levels of gang violence in
I would ask this Premier how many more victims will there be before this Premier realizes that being soft on crime, particularly with violent gangs, does not work.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the pathetic rhetoric of the member opposite–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Dealing with
issues of gangs, there is an article in the Free
Press from, I think, 1997 or, I will find it and send it to the member
opposite. I am sorry, it was June 15, 1998. It talks about the Hells Angels in
terms of
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am proud of the fact that–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Doer: Thank you, Mr.
Speaker. I would remind members opposite that last year we announced the
largest increase in police officers in the history of
* (13:45)
Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I know it is a sensitive issue to this Premier, as it would be with any premier, that their legacy is that the Hells Angels have set up shop under their watch. The Bandidos, the Mad Cowz, the African Mafia, that is the legacy that this Premier has to deal with.
Mr. Speaker, when the previous government
was building a courthouse that dealt with mega-trials for gangs, members across
on the other side were ridiculing that government. Today, when gangs have set
up in the
I would ask this Premier: Why does he put partisan politics, Mr. Speaker, in front of Manitobans instead of admitting that he made a mistake by mothballing a courthouse that was specifically dealt to deal with mega gang trials? Why did he do that?
Mr. Doer: Maybe it is intelligent to put $4 million into police officers instead of putting $3.5 million in a courthouse that the courts will not use, Mr. Speaker. That is our priority. That is why they were wrongheaded. That is why they were thrown out of office. People would rather have money for police officers on the streets rather than public relations exercises that took place pre-'99.
Gang Prosecutions
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): Mr. Speaker, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice admits that if there are ever more than 10 people charged with a crime, particularly a gang-related crime, the current courtroom being built would be too small. Perhaps, he has been assured by the Minister of Justice that there never will be more than 10 people charged in this province for gangs.
Last month, Mr. Speaker, and the Premier
wants to listen to this,
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I regret, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite have been left out in the dark for some reason in terms of what that Chevrier courthouse was all about. It was only designed, and they should know this, as a temporary facility, and it has very serious shortcomings.
Unfortunately the member opposite does not even know what the law is, Mr. Speaker. There was a direction given in this province, a guideline, that there be no more than eight or ten accused in any trial.
Mr. Goertzen: Mr. Speaker,
maybe the minister wants to talk to the former government services minister who
said that there were other uses in terms of courts and justice that it could be
used for.
The Martha Stewart makeover of the courtroom that is happening now across the street sends the wrong message to gangs. Why did he close a high-security, multi-accused courthouse and then decide to build something that is going to be too small and is not going to have the security if we ever truly went after gangs in the province?
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, I heard the opposition leader call the Chevrier courthouse a state-of-the-art courthouse. That facility is obsolete. They do not understand the law. The guideline in Manitoba is that there should be no more than eight or ten accused, and, indeed, the federal prosecutions division, in terms of a grow op, my understanding is that they are, in fact, making sure that there are no more than eight or ten accused in any one trial.
Mr. Speaker, the members opposite seem
completely oblivious to the fact that that courthouse out in
Mr. Goertzen: The Minister of Justice, immediately after being elected, stripped the courthouse. He emptied it out. Of course, it is not usable now because of what he did. Prior to botching his only attempt at trying to prosecute Hells Angels, in the province, Mr. Speaker, he said, the Minister of Justice said they would have to spend a half a million dollars on security for this courthouse if they were ever going to go and proceed with that particular prosecution. That was before the Hells Angels got into their limos and toasted the minister with their champagne and drove away to commit more crimes and to deal more drugs.
We had a high-security courthouse here in the province. It was built for multi-accused, Mr. Speaker. It could have been used to put Hells Angels away in jail but he mothballed it. He put his public spin ahead of public safety. Why will he not admit he was wrong in 1999 and he is wrong today?
* (13:50)
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, members opposite, they want their courthouse out. That does no good. It is obsolete, and I do not know but members on this side are concentrating instead on organized crime and prosecuting them with greater flexibility in a more secure environment in the courthouse, in the justice precinct. That is what our focus is.
It is on more police, Mr.
Speaker, 23 more for
Public Hearings
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
We simply ask the minister responsible for Workers Compensation why these hearings are being held with virtually no notice.
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Well, Mr. Speaker, I have said many times that any expansion of coverage in regard to Workers Compensation would be instigated by the Workers Compensation Board. I was not consulted in regard to the time frame. Those–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Allan: Excuse me. The Workers Compensation Board is an arm's length agency, Mr. Speaker, with a tripartite board of directors represented by labour, represented by employers and represented by the public interest, and they are having public hearings and–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Workers Compensation Board is an arm's length board that is represented by a tripartite board, and they are represented by employers, public interest and labour.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I should remind the minister that her brand-new legislation says that the Premier (Mr. Doer) and his Cabinet are now responsible for who is going to be covered. These hearings are scheduled to end on December 8.
I want to remind the minister the November 11 release from Workers Compensation states, and I quote, "This means the defining coverage has not been thoroughly reviewed since 1959." Now the WCB wants the consultative process to be completed within three weeks. What is the hurry? What is this government trying to hide?
Ms. Allan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the WCB for putting the information about the consultations on their Web site and being forthcoming with the community about any kind of expansion of coverage. We have made it very clear that any expansion of WCB coverage would be led by the WCB and that is what is occurring.
Mr. Cullen: Mr. Speaker, does this Premier (Mr. Doer) expect that every
business in
This government promised consultation for any expansion of coverage. This consultation comes at a time when consumers, employers and the business community are very, very busy. Why is this NDP government ignoring the consultation process?
Ms. Allan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to remind members opposite that we were very pleased to have their support on the passage of our WCB legislation. I want to thank them for that. I am quite sure that they are just as interested in having more workers covered by WCB legislation and coverage and we are consulting on that.
We all know the stories about the outside window washer and the inside window washer, Mr. Speaker. We all know those stories and the WCB is starting with the high-risk industries, and we do not believe that there is a short time frame on this. We are very confident that the WCB will do due diligence in regard to any expansion of coverage.
* (13:55)
Public Hearings
Mr. Ron Schuler (
Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to talk about
the review of the Employment Standards Code. The Employment Standards Code in
the
In
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker, public meetings were announced for an Employment Standards Code review for December 1, 6, 7 and 12. Workers Compensation review dates are November 28, December 1, 5 and 8. These meetings will be held in the middle of the Christmas season, the busiest time of the year for retailers, wholesalers and restaurateurs. Who exactly came up with this plan? Does this Doer government expect retailers to walk away from their business during their peak business season?
Ms. Allan: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the members opposite will agree with me that it is time to review the Employment Standards Code. I think it is important to look at all of the issues that we are faced with in the new economy: the changing face of the family today, the fact that it is not just two-income families any more.
Also I am the Minister responsible for Immigration. We have a lot of new immigrants in our community today, Mr. Speaker. We have every confidence that this timetable is workable. We are accepting any recommendation until–[interjection] The time frame on receiving recommendations and concerns and reports from the public is January 16, 2006.
Mr. Schuler: Mr. Speaker,
December 1 to 23, the
Mr. Speaker, now is the time for the
government to get up and delay the public meetings. This is the wrong time,
putting it in the busiest time for the retail, wholesale and restaurant
industry in
Ms. Allan: Well I am so glad to be informed, Mr. Speaker, by the Labour critic opposite when Santa is coming to town because I know that is very important. You know–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Ms. Allan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The deadline for receiving information from stakeholders is the 16th of January, 2006. Perhaps the member did not hear me say that in the previous answer to the question, and we have every confidence that that time frame is long enough and that Santa will have done his work by then.
* (14:00)
Commodity Groups' Concerns
Mr. Ralph Eichler (Lakeside): Mr.
Speaker, for months commodity groups have been discussing their concerns with
the issues to be raised at the upcoming WTO meetings in
My question for the Minister of Agriculture is what recommendations and concerns will the minister be raising on behalf of Manitoba producers when she meets with her federal and provincial counterparts on Thursday?
Hon. Rosann Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Initiatives): Mr. Speaker, the member is accurate that I will be meeting with the federal minister on a wide variety of issues that relate to agriculture.
With regard to the WTO talks, Mr. Speaker,
it is the federal government that takes the lead on the discussions. Provinces
are all involved and, as provinces, we consult very closely with the industry
to put together a position that we will be taking to the WTO. As members
opposite know, a Canadian position has been put forward. That position will be
discussed with the industries and that is the position that we will take, but I
will definitely be listening to the producers of
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker,
WTO meetings will set the stage for
Ms. Wowchuk: Although the member opposite may not know about previous meetings or previous discussions that I have had with people in the industry, I can tell him full well that I have had discussions with the supply management industry, with the people that are concerned about the Canadian Wheat Board and with those people who are also concerned about additional access. The member may not have had those discussions with the industry, but I have and I will continue to have them.
Mr. Eichler: Mr. Speaker, we continue to meet with the commodity groups and will continue to do so.
This minister has been aware of the WTO meetings for months. She has had months to formalize a well-thought-out plan and obviously has done nothing. Mr. Speaker, why is this minister waiting until the last minute to develop a plan, a resolution, for an issue of such significance?
Ms. Wowchuk: I do not
believe that the member opposite understands the process that takes place.
These processes do not just take place within the province. There are
discussions at the international level.
An Honourable Member: What are they?
Ms. Wowchuk: Issues of more access, issues of reducing subsidies in other countries, issues of ensuring that we can continue to maintain supply management and issues to ensure that the Canadian Wheat Board continues to exist.
Inter-Facility Transfers
Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Mr. Speaker, rural Manitobans who require the use of an ambulance for inter-facility transfers are being hammered with costs that they cannot afford. Patients are being assessed huge inter-facility transfer fees because they cannot access those services in our rural hospitals.
I want to ask the Minister of Health, who has had an opportunity to address this issue, why it is that he continues to stall and not agree to address this very cumbersome problem that is hitting Manitobans, especially rural Manitobans, in their pocket books.
Hon. Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, let me remind the member opposite
of a little bit of very important history. When we formed government, we had
the oldest ambulance fleet in
The question of the access to transport, Mr. Speaker, in almost every significant rural community, there is a new ambulance garage. There are new, full-time people on the ground so we are providing ambulance transport to Manitobans in a way that the former government never made possible.
Mr. Derkach: The reality
is that there has never been a problem with access to ambulances in rural
communities. I live in one. I know, Mr. Speaker. But the other side of coin is
that today rural Manitobans are paying through their noses to access facilities
in
I want to point to one case, Mr. Speaker.
Doug and Joan Knapp, who are my neighbours, recently received a bill for $1,245
because Mr. Knapp had to be transported to
When will the minister agree to cover
these costs of inter-facility transfer in the
Mr. Sale: Let us talk
about access, Mr. Speaker. Let us talk about access to services. Let us talk
about a new MRI in
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I want to talk about patients. I want to talk about real people. I want to talk about people who are suffering under this government because they cannot access services in their own communities. That is who I want to talk about, people who are forced onto the highways of this province at their own cost because this government refuses to address the inter-facility transfer costs.
Mr. Speaker, Douglas Knapp has had to pay
$1,245 for a trip from Russell to
I want to ask the minister whether or not
he will agree to start covering the cost of inter-facility transfers between
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, a couple of things. First of all, aneurism events have never been able to be treated outside of a tertiary care hospital. That was the situation when they were in government; it is the situation today. It is very complex surgery, very high-risk surgery.
The policy of transports and the policy of costs for transports is the same as it was under their government. They had 11 years. They did not put any ambulances on the road. They had no dispatch capacity. They had no standards for training for paramedics and they had no policy in regard to fees. We dealt with three of those four issues, and if he would read the Throne Speech he will know that we are studying carefully the fourth one.
Justification
Hon. Jon Gerrard (
I ask the Minister of Energy where is the huge surplus he is going to raid to put up this slush fund.
* (14:10)
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and Technology): During the course of three hours of committee hearing this morning, our member did not mention this issue. I should indicate to the member opposite that the federal government, the party of which he represents, is taking money and paying money to low-income natural gas consumers to protect them against the rate shock of natural gas prices that have tripled since 1999 and are up 44 percent this year.
The decision about limiting the cost to
residential consumers was made by the Public Utilities Board, an independent
body, and not by like the member from
Mr. Gerrard: The Minister of Energy would do well to try and work with the markets instead of trying to fight the market at every turn.
I ask the Minister of Energy given that the Conservatives were talking the other day about this magical $193-million surplus and given that, over the last three years when you include this year, the net income for Manitoba Hydro will be close to zero, I ask the minister to explain where is this huge surplus that he is going to raid to set up his slush fund.
Mr. Chomiak: If the member would read the PUB ruling and the PUB directive, I know it is 99 pages but if the member would read it, it is fully explained that there is a deferral of the cost over the winter season, Mr. Speaker, because of successful hedging by Manitoba Hydro. The market is around 11 cents a gigajoule right now. They hedged it somewhere between $7 and $8, so there is a gap right now that Manitoba Hydro has in order to cushion the rates on customers.
Secondly,
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The former NDP Premier, Ed Schreyer, says that it is stupid. I agree with the former Premier. It is a stupid idea, Mr. Speaker. My question to the Minister of Energy is why is he shafting the 200 000-plus electrical consumers in our province.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, there are over 500 000
consumers of electricity in
Mr. Speaker, I think that narrow marketplace position is not what the majority of Manitobans want. They know we want to shield them from price spikes and that is what we intend to do without having to draw money.
Government Initiatives
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, talking about energy, today the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology announced with Manitoba Hydro an expression of interest to develop 1000 megawatts of wind energy over the next decade.
This clean energy initiative is so unique and futuristic. Could the minister inform the House what this means to the development of our energy capacity in the province?
Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Energy, Science and
Technology): Mr. Speaker, not only did we announce the
first portion of a sale of hydro to Ontario, not only is an ethanol plant
expanding in Minnedosa, not only are we doing four biodiesel projects in
Manitoba, but we announced an EOI for 1000 megawatts of wind which potentially
could benefit $2 billion in capital investment, potentially over $7 billion in
value of energy sales, $1 billion in ongoing operating expenditures, $100
million in wind right payments to the landowners, $150 million in property
taxes, $200 million to provincial taxes, 250 to 300 ongoing operational jobs,
plus the possibility of related manufacturing with investment that could range
from $20 million to $100 million and create possibly 100 to 500 direct jobs in
the energy sector. I think that is not too bad for a province that is leading
the way in
Recruitment/Retention Strategy
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Citizens in
Mr. Speaker, I demand of the minister: What is this government's plan to provide doctors in these towns?
Hon.
Tim Sale (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, what we are doing is what we have
been doing for the last five years. We are increasing the enrolment in the
Mr. Speaker, what
we have been doing is to increase enrolment in our medical school. They cut it
from 85 to 70. We have raised it this year. It will be up to 100. We are
looking at over 220 more doctors in
Mr. Maguire: Well, Mr.
Speaker, this is darn cold comfort to the citizens of southwest
In a letter sent to the Minister of Health in early November, Dick and Helen Harmes [phonetic] of Melita wrote, and I quote, "We would like to see more attention given to retaining the existing doctors and treating them with the respect they deserve so that we are not always in a position of trying to recruit new ones."
Mr. Speaker, when will this minister provide a commitment to rural hospitals like Melita, or is this just another rural hospital that the NDP government is planning to close?
Mr. Sale: First of all,
Mr. Speaker, look at Minnedosa, arthroscopic surgery, a wonderful facility that
was initially planned under the Pawley government and opened under the previous
government. Look at Rivers, an older hospital that is now an acute rehab
hospital for people recovering from hip surgery. Look at the 18 CancerCare
Manitoba sites across rural Manitoba that are evidence of the confidence that
we have in rural Manitoba's capacity to deliver better care sooner, closer to
where people live. Look at the expansion in the capacities in rural
Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, citizens in Deloraine are trying to raise funds themselves to attract doctors to take care of their own general practitioner needs. This NDP government has let this hospital fall to one doctor.
When will this government get serious and provide enough doctors to meet the needs of these communities, particularly when this is the government that raises people's expectations by promising a cancer clinic for a community like Deloraine and then lets it fall to one doctor?
Mr. Sale: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that across
* (14:20)
When the previous government cut enrolment in the medical college in 1994 and 1995, eight years hence is when that damage shows up, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, they made some bad decisions a long time ago. We are repairing those decisions but there is no instant cure for bad decisions made eight years ago.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Order. Prior
to moving on to Members' Statements, I would like to draw the attention of
honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from the
International Institute for Sustainable Development 15 visitors from
Mr. Drew Caldwell (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with
members news of a very pleasant dinner I recently attended in
Mr. Speaker, enrolment in
Mr. Speaker, our government is determined
to support
The announcement of this post-secondary
capital project is one of the highlights of the 2005-06 Throne Speech. Mr.
Speaker, our government is committed to working with the City of
I would like to congratulate the students of the culinary arts department on the success of this event and thank them for providing their guests the opportunity to sample exquisite cuisine from around the world.
I would like to thank my colleague, the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith), as well as the
Member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Maguire) and the Member for Minnedosa (Mrs.
Rowat) for attending this event and for lending support to the students of the
culinary arts program at
Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, I had the pleasure
of attending the Barbados Association of Winnipeg annual independence banquet
and dance. The Barbados Association has been active in
Every year the association honours one
individual who has truly committed countless volunteer hours to the Barbados
Association. This year, the president, Mr. Rupert Forde, was the recipient of
this award for volunteerism, and I would like to congratulate him. Mr. Forde
told me he spent hours on the road driving into
I appreciated the message of the guest speaker, Mr. Edward Best, whose message was that we must be an inclusive society where there are no traces of racism. Diversity of cultures might be better replaced by inclusivity of all cultures as Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the
Barbados Association on 28 years in
Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, today the Association of Manitoba
Municipalities kicks off its seventh annual convention. This is the largest
event hosted by the AMM, an organization that represents all municipalities in
Mr. Speaker, our
government is pleased to work closely with municipal officials and the AMM to
further the goals of rural Manitobans. We recognize that our agricultural
producers are facing difficult times. This year, in
We are working
co-operatively with municipal officials to provide better health care sooner
and closer to home for rural Manitobans. New chemotherapy services have been
designated in Neepawa, Pinawa and Deloraine, and new CT scanners and
ultrasounds have been placed in rural communities across
For example, the coming
year will see the completion of
The Province and Manitoba Hydro are currently taking the next major step in our wind development strategy by requesting proposals for new projects that will total up to 1000 megawatts of wind generation over the next decade. The estimated capital investment for these projects is over $2 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I would like
to thank all municipal officials for their hard work on behalf of rural
Manitobans. I commend them for their willingness to work with the provincial
government in moving
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, I rise in the Manitoba Legislature today to congratulate an accomplished young lady, Miss Aleaha More, who was born and raised in Virden, Manitoba, and was recently crowned Miss Rodeo Canada 2006 in Edmonton on November 11.
Being crowned Miss Rodeo
Miss Rodeo
Miss More has been riding horses since she
was a young girl. Her father, Dr. Everett More, is a local veterinarian and is
part of a practice that includes horses in virtually all of southwestern
On behalf of all the members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, I would like to extend my congratulations and best wishes to the queen of rodeo, Miss Aleaha More who proudly holds the crown of Miss Rodeo Canada 2006.
Mr. Bidhu Jha (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House the huge volunteer effort that goes on this time of the year in the Transcona area of Radisson constituency. Fall suppers are put on by the churches in the area to raise money. The flurry of activity goes on almost every Sunday from the middle of September until November. This is a community effort, and I enjoy participation in this particular event.
Mr. Speaker, this proud tradition comes from the days when neighbours helped one another, and I am proud to represent an area where people still know and love their neighbours. In Radisson and Transcona, people have a history of sharing good times and the bad, and the fall supper is a reflection of that. People gather to give thanks for a good year or work together to make a better year to come.
* (14:30)
Mr. Speaker, at fall suppers guests are treated with great homemade food and good conversation. Families spend quality time together enjoying their supper. I am so happy to attend these events with my wife, Raj, who loves the Ukrainian food the most. I also enjoy eating the perogies and cabbage rolls so lovingly prepared by the mothers and grandmothers of the community.
Thank you again to the volunteers who work so hard each fall to put on these great suppers raising, in turn, funds for community development and institutions and programs that contribute year round to our lives, our families and our neighbours. They truly exemplify the Transcona neighbourhood of Radisson. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please canvass the House to see if there is an agreement for the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations to sit concurrently with the House this afternoon, starting at three o'clock to continue consideration of the 2003, 2004, 2005 Hydro annual reports? That would be with a no-vote, no-quorum rule in the House. Also, if consent is given, the meeting will be moved to 254 because of prep for the meeting tonight on Bill 7.
Mr. Speaker: Is there agreement for the Standing Committee on Crown Corporations to sit concurrently with the House this afternoon at 3 p.m. in order to continue consideration of the March 31, 2003, 2004, and 2005 Hydro annual reports and no quorum or votes this afternoon? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
Also to advise the House that the meeting will be moved over to Room 254, given that Room 255 will need to be prepared for the committee meeting this evening on Bill 7. So that is to advise the House.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you first call adjourned debate on Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act.
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading, Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach).
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell? Agreed? [Agreed]
It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell, and also standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Education (Mr. Bjornson), who has eight minutes remaining.
Hon. Peter Bjornson (Minister of Education, Citizenship and Youth): Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to provide some comments in summary with respect to The Winter Heating Cost Control Act and again to speak to the fact that there are two parts to this legislation that is very critical for Manitobans: first of all, protecting customers from rate shock; and, secondly, providing long-term solutions to help all Manitobans.
Now, Mr. Speaker,
imagine you are a fly on the wall in a rural
The conversation
goes on: "Well, no, no, we were the party that sold MTS and watched your
telephone rates go up by 68 percent. That was us. That is correct, but you know
at least when you are on the Internet, you know that your Hydro rates are low to
provide that service. Oh, you do not have Internet service in this part of
rural
"You do have
protection for the Centra Gas rate shock, and that is because of this
government. You do have programs that are designed to encourage efficiency, and
that is because of this government. You do have a long-term vision and a
long-term plan for the future of
If they were to continue to have that
conversation with families in rural
We are very proud of this legislation in
that it, again, provides protection. It is what the consumers deserve. They did
not have protection from a privatized utility in the
Our government is acting on recommendations to address the issue of rate shock. Manitobans do not want rate shock. We have been fortunate, very fortunate so far in November to have only a few days where the mercury has dipped to considerably cold weather, but we know in this province that we are guaranteed to have a few weeks where the mercury will be dipping considerably lower than it has been. Manitobans should not have to compromise their personal comfort and safety in their homes because they cannot afford to pay.
Members opposite keep saying, "Let the market handle it. Let the market handle it." Well, we saw what the market has done with MTS. We saw that MTS has abandoned certain markets because they question the profitability of Internet access, so there are areas of Manitoba that do not have Internet access because it is now a private corporation that does not see any value in addressing Internet access in these areas. That is really unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, because some of those areas in question are in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies.
But we do not abandon constituencies in
I will reiterate what I said when we last met, Mr. Speaker, that this provides for the expansion of the Power Smart program. It has been referenced a couple of times that the Suzuki Foundation recognizes Manitoba as leaders, but members opposite, they have no interest in being leaders on this issue. They say, "Let the market do what it may," but we are leaders at so many levels and in so many initiatives that we have brought forward with respect to energy in this province that we are recognized by a world-renowned scientist. That is Dr. David Suzuki and the foundation.
So we will continue to go the course with
respect to initiatives in Power Smart that encourage Manitobans to make good
use of their resources, to find ways to conserve resources, and, of course, the
fact that the more we save in energy here in Manitoba, the more we can export
to foreign markets. We have done a heck of a job as a province, a heck of a job
as a public utility with respect to some of the exports of hydro that we have
seen and the recent announcement that members opposite must recall with the
$500-million sale of electricity to
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that Manitobans take a look at The Winter Heating Cost Control Act and recognize what it has stands for. It stands for protection. It stands for long-term solutions. I cannot emphasize that enough, that Manitobans deserve protection from rate shock, the same that was not afforded to them with MTS, as I said, and they deserve a long-term solution. That is what he are committed to do. We have long-term solutions through the support of the Power Smart expansion and through encouraging exploration alternatives to natural gas; again, more announcements coming, more announcements around wind energy, more announcements around calls for proposals on different initiatives that will achieve that end.
So I think it is very important that members opposite take a look at this, not as let the market decide. We want to let the people decide. We have talked to many Manitobans who have said that they need the rate protection, and many Manitobans value the programs that we have brought forward, including the Power Smart initiatives.
We will continue to work that way, Mr.
Speaker, because that is our commitment to the people of
* (14:40)
Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): I am very excited to rise today and speak some thoughts on Bill 11. So often we hear in public discourse that there is no difference between the different political parties that exist in our province or in our country, that everyone governs the same way, and that you cannot make a difference by entering politics.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
This legislation fundamentally blows that theory out of the water. We have in front of us here a progressive, sustainable, excellent piece of legislation which addresses, not just environmental, not just social, not just economic needs, but all three of them together. This, I would suggest, is a prime example of sustainable development legislation. It is just the latest chapter in many phenomenal accomplishments of this government in this particular area.
Now I want to give some context to my
detailed comments on the proposed act, on Bill 11. I want to start with that
context in looking at the energy situation that we face here in
This government, with its foresight, with
its efforts, with its collaborative approach to working with Manitoba Hydro and
working with Manitobans, rather than against everybody, has found a solution,
and quite a phenomenal one at that. The first wind turbines in
This contrasts with our overall power grid
which stands at around 5000 megawatts. So, to put that into context, we are
looking at a 20 percent increase in the capacity of
On top of this, with wind power, we also
have a very sustainable approach, a very sensible approach to energy
conservation. Manitoba Hydro's Power Smart program has conserved 250 megawatts
of energy. To put that into context, Mr. Speaker, we have, on proposal right
now, a new, low-impact dam in northern
So, through simple conservation measures,
we have been able to achieve a remarkable Power Smart saving, and I might add
that
So there already, Mr. Speaker, you can see
quite a few dramatic differences between our political party and the political
party that inherited government in
Other success stories
that our government is very proud to pass on relate to a 13-fold increase in
the production of ethanol in
All of these, Mr.
Speaker, relate to reducing our reliance on fossil fuels, all of which are
imported from
Now, the Minister of Industry (Mr.
Rondeau) has just kindly reminded me that, in fact, we do have oil exploration
operations that are happening at a historical rate as well in southwestern
Of course, we also were
the first province to bring in a hydrogen strategy exploring the enormous
potential of that power source for the future. Again, a fossil fuel free source
of power when you consider that
Then we have Bill 11. Bill 11 has been brought in, and we are here at the second reading stage. I am sure there will be quite a few commentaries about it over the weeks ahead, but what everyone should recognize is that this is an example of what a government can achieve when it has the political courage and the capacity to help its residents in the face of adversity. If we were to just step back, as both opposition parties and as some spokespersons for other political entities outside of this Chamber have advocated, if we were to just step back and allow the market to take its magical course every single person using natural gas in our province would be facing, according to the Public Utilities Board, again, an independent arm's-length entity, a 44 percent rate increase. This is simply not acceptable.
A person has the capacity to change their
lifestyle so that they use fewer fossil fuels when it comes to driving their
car. You can choose to use alternative transportation and, in fact, just this
morning, as it happens, I was at
When it comes to heating your home, though, particularly if you are a renter, you do not have any control whatsoever over the price of natural gas and what it does to you. That price in some parts of our own country and in other parts of the world is set by the free market and the results are devastating. Low-income people, working people, middle-class people, high-income people, everybody feels the pinch when the global price of natural gas is such that we face rate increases like 44 percent.
* (14:50)
Remarkably, members opposite from both the
Progressive Conservative and the Liberal parties are advocating for exactly
that. They do not believe in the public good. They do not believe in making a
difference for people using policy measures that are readily available. They
want the market to set the price for a basic necessity like natural gas for
heating, and I find that absolutely appalling. How on earth would members
opposite be able to look anyone in their home communities in the eye and say that
they took that policy position when people would not be able to afford to pay
for their gas bills, when the schools and hospitals, the health care facilities
which might be running on natural gas, when those were unable to afford the
price increases? How on earth would members opposite or anyone else taking the
position that markets should set the rate for natural gas, how on earth could
anybody justify that position to the people who were going to be most affected
by that decision? I find it an absolutely appalling policy stance. I am
eternally grateful that none of those commentators are currently in office in
We should also, I think, take pause to
note that none other than David Suzuki has applauded
I might also point out that Manitoba Hydro
has done a phenomenal job and should be congratulated as such for hedging. For
those who may not know what hedging is, this is where you attempt to reduce the
risk of future expenses by purchasing a quantity of natural gas, in this
instance, in advance and then having those reserves available. Manitoba Hydro
was able to purchase its natural gas well in advance and at a price which is
several dollars lower than what the price spikes are currently calling for on
the open market. This, as we heard from the Energy Minister during Question
Period just now, has had a remarkable impact on Manitoba Hydro's fiscal
capacity to avoid the dramatic price spikes that would otherwise be happening
if members opposite had their way and privatized the Crown corporations in
Anybody who still thinks that a Tory or a Liberal is going to give you a better Manitoba or a better bottom line should take a look at Bill 11 and the positions being adopted and they will see full well that that is patently false. It always has been, but here is another prime example of just how false that really is. Under a privatized system where Manitoba Hydro is just operating in the market, same as anybody else, where market prices are just set by the market, the people who can afford it are able to purchase electricity and able to purchase natural gas. They are able to stay warm but for people who cannot afford it, for the public institutions that need electricity and who need natural gas in order to run the schools and run the hospitals, well, those entities are really going to have a tough time with that type of a future, which, I hope, never happens.
That is the policy position that they have taken. They are accountable for it, and I have absolutely no problem standing here in this Chamber and pointing out the immense superiority of what our government has brought in in stark contrast to their vision. We should also, Mr. Speaker, acknowledge that, when we talk about the difference between commercial customers and residential customers, that distinction is not based on the type of activity that is actually being done using the power that is purchased from Manitoba Hydro for electricity or from Centra Gas. It is a question of scale. So, when I talk about schools and hospitals being affected, that is the absolute truth. It does not matter. There is no special rate for a government entity. There is no special rate whether you are a non-profit daycare or if you are a local community group providing services to local citizens. It all depends on the scale and quantity of the resource that your operation is using.
When the phrase "commercial rate" is used, it is important for us to remember that those large consumers may well be part of the public sector and they may well also be part of the business sector. What this legislation does is it enables all of those users to avoid the enormous market-driven price spike that is going to occur if their policies were implemented. They actually want to hurt businesses. They would put businesses out of business. They would have a devastating impact on low-income people.
We know full well from the experiences of the nineties what the previous government did to low-income people, what they would continue to do if they ever had a chance to do it again. There has been no policy change over there, and their position on Bill 11 is yet one more reflection of this. Our government, our political party, believes in the public good. We believe in the common good.
We believe in protecting the common good through legislation such as bans on bulk water, through legislation such as requirements of referendums should any future government get the insane idea into its head that it wants to try to privatize a Crown corporation, through proper funding support for our public entities, health care, education, rather than advertisements in schools and privatization of home care, all of which were not so brilliant ideas from members opposite and which get added to a very full closet of skeletons that they get to lug around with them.
The fundamental difference between our
political party and our ability in government to achieve something like Bill 11
and to propose it is that we start with the premise that the public good has
value and that it merits protection. Members opposite do not care about
The other aspect of Bill 11, and there are two primary themes to what Bill 11 will do. On the one hand, it will delay the price spikes that are happening with natural gas on the world market until a spring hearing of the Public Utilities Board will step forward with a ruling. This, of course, will provide relief for natural gas users throughout the winter, which is the most important time of year when you are a natural gas user.
The other benefit of Bill 11, and the part which I am equally excited about, is this legislation will enable Manitoba Hydro under its own auspices to establish a fund which will be used to reduce the consumption of natural gas by Manitobans. Add to this the other recent announcement from our Energy Minister, who has been very busy of late, that he is pulling together a review of commercial code for both commercial and institutional settings. The building code and electricity code will be reviewed with an eye to improve energy efficiency. The recent announcement is also from his office that, through Manitoba Hydro, homeowners with natural gas who may wish to reduce their environmental footprint and save some money will be encouraged to do so. If they wish to install some additional insulation in their attic or in their walls, Manitoba Hydro will cover a portion of the cost for that insulation purchase. These are just a couple of the possible uses for the fund which this act will enable Manitoba Hydro to establish.
So we have here a piece of legislation
which economically makes great sense because it reduces our reliance on fossil
fuels coming in from out of province and which will then lead to additional
financial benefits within Manitoba when funds do not move away from our
jurisdiction. Socially speaking, this is a progressive piece of legislation
because it benefits everyone in
It allows all of us collectively to work together through our provincial government and through our Crown corporation in order to avoid the price spike which the market place would impose on us otherwise. Environmentally, we not only managed to recognize the enormous achievements that Manitoba has made already in the area of energy efficiency, but we have now given Manitoba Hydro, through Bill 11, the capacity to put more resources into demand-side management, an area where Manitoba Hydro is already recognized as a national and international leader and, as I mentioned before, where Manitoba finishes first in energy efficiency.
* (15:00)
When you put those three pillars together, the environment, the economy and social well-being, that is when you have created a piece of sustainable development legislation. It is an excellent, excellent example of taking a balanced approach, not putting the blinders on and saying, "Oh, we've got to only look after the environment" or "We've got to only look after the economy." There are ways to address issues in all three areas. This piece of legislation does it.
I have no idea why members opposite are speaking against it. I think that is a bad move politically. This is a very popular piece of legislation. It is going to hang around your necks for years, and we are going to make sure of that. I will take this piece of legislation door-to-door in my community or any community around the province, and it will be very easy to talk to folks on the doorstep and say, "Do you believe in avoiding natural gas price spikes? Do you believe in energy conservation? Do you believe in a cleaner environment? Do you believe in a healthier economy? Well, guess what? The Tories and the Liberals are opposed to it. The NDP is in favour of it. We brought it in. We are going to pass it. We are going to make it happen." Manitobans will remember that for years to come. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Deputy Speaker, it gives me great honour to speak to Bill 11, The Winter Heating Cost Control Act. As others before me have mentioned, first, it is certainly something that we agree with on this side of the House and certainly something former Premier Ed Schreyer had mentioned. Certainly, it is wrong to subsidize fossil-fuel rates with renewable hydro energy. That, certainly, is something that we believe in on this side of the House.
Bill 11 does not cross-subsidize, Mr. Speaker–
An Honourable Member: Yes, it does.
Mr. Smith: As the member
opposite likes to say, incorrectly, that it does subsidize, Mr. Speaker, Bill
11 provides for price increase in natural gas to be deferred and paid back over
time. This does prevent hardship of sudden rate shock and does mean using Hydro
profits to reduce rates. Bill 11 provides for some Hydro profits to help
Manitobans reduce their consumption and to switch to alternatives. The member
from Wolseley had mentioned many of those areas, that it, certainly, does help
reduce the energy levels that we are using here in
With that goal in mind, Mr. Speaker, based on economics and, certainly, based on energy consumption reduction in the province of Manitoba combined, we have seen, since the early 1970s when the Schreyer government was in and expanding hydro in the province of Manitoba for the benefit of Manitobans, I might mention, many rural Manitobans that we have certainly addressed over the last period of time to have equalization of rates not only throughout the large urban centres but, certainly, throughout all of the rural Manitoba for our producers, for our small businesses, and for our consumers in rural Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, you can take
the analogy, I guess, by saying that Alberta has oil and a lot of dead
dinosaurs under the ground; in fact, I would go so far to say many dinosaurs
above the ground in their provincial government, but that Manitoba, I believe,
is looking at the future and looking at what we see as, certainly, the
utilization of an energy source in many forms, utilizing hydro-electric power
in many forms, both in hydraulic development of hydro and in, now, wind power.
We heard the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology (Mr. Chomiak) talk
about some of the positives that we can look forward to as we develop our
hydro-electric energy power source in
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the rate
shock and what may happen with using market-controlled rates, and the member
opposite, certainly the Liberal Party's view, I guess, is not to assist
Manitobans during a time of increasing high energy. What the potential impact
that would have, not only on
Mr. Speaker, the member may want to get out of the Perimeter Highway once in a while, and consider the impact of not having large market shares and the impact of slight reductions of market share over a short period of time and the impact, the long-term impact, to rural and small communities of those businesses reducing and shutting down, not only on the producers' side, but on the business side and the large business side for that matter in rural Manitoba.
When you look at the strategy of what this bill is bringing into force, it is to not have cross-subsidization, but deferral for a period of time. Now, when we look at, and we consider the development of what this bill addresses, keeping in mind this time of year when large increases can have devastating impacts over not just the economy in Manitoba, but how quickly that happens in rural Manitoba, this bill certainly addresses a number of things. One, Mr. Speaker, is to have a deferral for a period of time and a stabilization of energy costs going through the winter and into the spring, something that people can look at and have a focus on what their costs will be over a period of time, utilizing a reduction in the use of the fossil fuels and the potential deferral costs and the investment on some of the capital side for a cost reduction for better energy in Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, when we look at fossil fuels as not being a renewable energy source and the shortness of supply that we are starting to see and the impacts that you can have on market-driven costs from events that can happen, emergency events, for instance, what we have seen through the Gulf of Mexico over the last period of time where a lot of the energy for North America comes from, it is very hard for stability when you are dependent, so heavily dependent strictly on fossil fuels within a society, and a society that we have here in the north could certainly be one that would be impacted as much or more than anybody in North America.
People have to heat their homes and people
have to continually run their businesses. They have their transportation
systems and loops set up, and it is dependent too heavily on fossil fuels right
now, unfortunately. But this bill does start to address some of that. It starts
to address that over 230 000 homes in
Where a price in natural gas can leap by 10 percent, sometimes it is something that people can take into their planning, their business planning. When it leaps 20 percent, it begins to become more difficult. When it leaps 30 and 40 percent, it starts to become unmanageable. When you have these rate increases and you have no stability in predicting what those rate increases might be, you have to look at alternative energy.
* (15:10)
I believe that this bill addresses that.
We look at the fund that allows the export of our power, Mr. Speaker, as we,
the only government that has ever developed hydro-electricity in this province,
begin to look at again long-term planning and the strategy for long-term
planning through the hydraulic development of energy here in the province of
Manitoba, something that actually is not new, but something where action been
taken by this government and, certainly, with the investment of private
business in the
Mr. Speaker, wind power is something going back many years, decades, in fact, along with solar power. It was first developed or not first developed but certainly driven on the southwestern coast of the United States in California, and some of the reports from Berkeley going back to the mid to late seventies addressed the potential for the development of wind power.
At that time, I guess, along the lines of the new leader of the Green Party, the press talked at that time, and some of the Republicans at that time talked, about not listening to the long-haired radicals and university students and people in college. I hear a lot along the same lines from the new leader for the federal Green Party, unfortunately, which was, to my understanding, with Manitoba Hydro. So I am dismayed by those comments that were made similarly along the lines of her wanting to remove long-haired university students and certainly people who are going to college and university as being left-leaning.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the left-leaning people
that she talked about certainly were the people from 30 years ago, and now it
does not look like such a bad idea. In fact, it is economically feasible to do
so. It is a strategy for an alternate fuel for consumption with renewable
energy and combined with the hydraulic development of hydro-electric power in
the
Along the same lines, Mr.
Speaker, when people a number of years ago talked about an energy strategy of
utilizing solar power and the possibility and potential of solar power, I
recall and I remember very well the same lines coming from I guess you could
term it right-wing radicals that said, "Well, that will never work. It is
economically non-feasible. It will never happen. There will not be any
development of this power, that we should not be considering it and we should
not be looking at it." Well, all you have to do is walk about a 10- or
15-minute walk from where we are privileged to be debating this issue today to
So, Mr. Speaker, the stabilization of energy and the stabilization of energy costs and certainly to look at the reduction of the utilization of fossil fuels used so prevalently and so heavily in a market like ours is only good planning. It is good economic sense. It looks at commercial rates that have been increased, you know, from 12 to 18 percent. Basically, we have been able to cushion that, and we have been able to cushion it through having this energy supply divided up into many sources.
When you consider that it has been about 44 percent in market increase on the commercial side in rates, I daresay in a residential situation when you have a 44 percent increase, we know how that impacts our household income. We know how that impacts having to divert some of the other necessary expenses that we have in our own personal lives, but just think of a business or an industry that has probably, oh, Nexen Chemical uses hydro-electric, but you take something along the lines of Simplot chemical company that has one of the largest input costs in their cost structure being natural gas.
Now, Mr. Speaker, Simplot chemical company
in a community like mine, in Brandon, if there was a sudden flow of 44 percent
on the largest input cost that they had, it could be devastating for hundreds
of workers in a community like Brandon. You could take many other examples
throughout rural
The previous government had a strategy through the nineties. I think many Manitobans started to see that strategy, and I daresay if we would not have been elected in '99, we may have had our energy company or Manitoba Hydro sold off by now. A good example of that and certainly, Mr. Speaker, I will let people develop their own outcomes, but they thought it was a great idea to sell, probably, one of the best technological advantages and companies that we had here in the province of Manitoba employing some 6000 people. The members opposite, I know, want to put their heads down and not be reminded of this. Now the Manitoba Telecom Services we have here in Manitoba or the old Manitoba Telephone System that was developed, built over a period of 70 years in this province by people in every corner of every part of this province–you had line people, "linemen" at that time, it was called, working in every small and rural community, building that corporation, building those lines for the benefits of all Manitobans.
We had some of the lowest costs, lowest rate access to communications in all of Canada, in fact, I daresay all of North America and literally all of the world where it was expected that someone that was in a community would have a telephone. It would be affordable, they would have the ability, and people would not have to pencil it in as being a major expense into their household budget. That worked well. It worked extremely well on not only building the amount of jobs that we had and the spin in the economy that that had, but, Mr. Speaker, it had seniors in their homes that had a $13 bill for a telephone that, just in case, when they were shut in in their homes or they could not get out, they had the comfort of knowing that they could contact in an instant some help if need be.
When we look at the tripling of those rates. and we look at the tripling of those rates along the lines of what we are talking about with this bill on being able to stay in your home and have it as the lowest cost for the benefit of society for Manitobans, I have now heard many times from seniors, I have heard many times from people that are disabled, I have heard many times from single-parent families, I have heard many times from people that have been students or impoverished, a phone is no longer something that is a right. In their mind, a phone is something for people that have wealth. Mr. Speaker, how terribly unfortunate that is for our society in this day and age where we have phone bills that are $40 and $50 a month on minimum pricing when they were $13, as little as $19.98. That will not happen to Manitoba Hydro. That will not happen to Crown corporations under this government, and the difference in philosophy, I think, between our side and the other side of the House, is that–
An Honourable Member: We care.
* (15:20)
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I
heard a member say, "We care," and yes, we do care, but we care on
two fronts. We care on the front of developing a long-term strategy as the
dinosaurs in
So, Mr. Speaker, going back to the early
seventies and the
It is what
The energy costs in
Mr. Speaker, we will continue to look at
what protects Manitobans, certainly, with rate shock with this bill. We will
look at what protects all
So, Mr. Speaker, our energy strategy in
Our philosophical strategy certainly does
not involve that. It involves planning for the future, as the Schreyer
government planned for the future, which comes to another issue along the lines
of what this bill does. I recall the right-wing Republican Party from the
opposite side on auto insurance, going back, again, to the Schreyer government
while they were building and planning and developing hydro-electricity for the
You look again, and, now, as the mistake
they made with selling off one Crown corporation and looking at a couple of
others, now their view has changed. They sit there and they go: "What a
vision that the New Democratic Party had for long term, not for tomorrow, not
for next week or the month after, but years ahead for our children, and, certainly,
the benefits of
Now, Mr. Speaker, as with our hydro-electric, which is recognized right across the nation as being one of the premier corporations and well-run corporations, auto insurance, certainly, was something that the members opposite seem to have changed their mind on, their views on.
The Liberals, of course, Mr. Speaker, change their mind every couple of days, but the party opposite, the Republican or the Conservative Party opposite, certainly, has a view of selling off Crown corporations. The New Democratic vision for Manitoba Hydro reflected in this bill, I think, speaks for itself, the economic benefits for Manitobans, the stability for planned strategy of our producers.
I notice many of the rural MLAs that I see across sitting in their seats in the Conservative Party that we have here with us this afternoon are nodding their heads, I believe, in agreement that the benefits of our decision to stabilize and have rates for all of Manitobans, our producers certainly, was a good move.
Mr. Speaker, it would have been a good
idea to keep MTS for those same rural members, and certainly our producers and
our farmers and our rural Manitobans, but when you think about it, whom do you
trust when it comes to the sale of Crown corporations in
Do you trust the Republicans or, I mean, the Conservatives, opposite, or do you trust the building of the New Democratic Party's vision for our Crown corporations on an economic basis that will be beneficial for society in Manitoba, Mr. Speaker?
It will be even-keeled, Mr. Speaker, no
surprises from this side of the House. We are the only ones that have ever
developed one watt of electricity in this
This bill is something I know that members opposite would like to speak to, I believe. If their caucus would only allow them they would do it and support this bill, support the positives in this bill, support this for Manitobans, rural Manitobans, urban Manitobans and certainly for the future of our children and for Manitobans. With those few words on the record, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for this limited time.
Hon. Jim Rondeau (Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to put a few words on this Bill 11 because I think it speaks to the philosophy or the basic beliefs of the different parties. We have here a bill which is investing in the future, planning for the future, and it has got a win-win-win situation.
The first win is it is providing
conservation, it is providing saving energy and allowing people to conserve
long-term energy resources because what it does is it allows people to put
money into their homes, into insulation, into new windows. It expands the Power
Smart program. The Power Smart program is one of the best programs in
So an example is, in the Power Smart
program, we have been able to have loans to people who own homes from $3,500 to
$5,000. What happens is that these loans allow people to get new windows, new
doors, better insulation and that then saves money. It does not just save money
today; it saves money for the long term. This becomes really important because
what it does is it allows middle- and low-income Manitobans a chance to save
money forever. So it is not just a one shot deal like in
* (15:30)
The second win is to local contractors. I am surprised at the members opposite, because what this does is it employs local contractors, small businesses, medium-sized businesses. I am surprised the members opposite do not support small and medium-sized businesses. You hear the screams from members opposite about how much they hate businesses, and it is terrible that the member from Steinbach keeps on blurting from his seat that he does not want to support local businesses of any kind.
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Point of order being raised. Please state your point of order.
Mr. Kelvin Goertzen (Steinbach): As you well know, Beauchesne says that all information needs to be factual in this House. In fact, what I was saying is while this minister gives loans to porn shops, we do not believe in giving loans to porn shops. He misunderstood me. I wish he would correct the record.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the same point?
An Honourable Member: The same point of order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the same point of order, the honourable minister.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry (Mr. Rondeau) was talking about business and the positives of this bill for businesses, it appeared to me that the member opposite from Steinbach was not agreeing that the benefits for business are important for Manitobans.
He appears to have no point of order. I
would have thought by sitting in my chair and watching him that he was, in
fact, saying that he did not care about the businesses in
So, Mr. Speaker, I was along the same line as the Minister of Industry on that. He does not seem to have a point of order. If he was not heckling so loud and would listen to what the minister was saying, we may be able to understand what he was saying.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Everybody knows that a dispute over the facts is not a point of order. The honourable member has no point of order.
* * *
Mr. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a shame that the members opposite continue to throw accusations at all businesses and are so anti-business. Again, I talk about the philosophical nature of our party.
The members opposite proposed to be a business party. Well, here is what happens. Since the members opposite say that they are going to be a business party, they are not supporting, they slag the comments against giving businesses a better shot for energy. They are shooting down the philosophy of support of small, medium and large business. They do not think that government should support or assist any businesses. They think that businesses should be left to anything.
We believe that we work in partnership with business, and I see a sad day that the Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen) continues to say that we should not support business in any way, shape or form. I also–
Point of Order
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A point of order is being raised. Please state your point of order.
Mr. Goertzen: I will continue to stand on a point of order as long the member continues to misrepresent me. Again, I talked about the issue of porn shops, and his former premier, Ed Schreyer, who finds this to be regressive. If he wants to put misinformation on the record, then he should apologize for continuing to do that, Mr. Speaker.
An Honourable Member: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Goertzen: Well, he continues to put this information on.
An Honourable Member: You are abusing the rules of the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
The points of order are not to be used for debates. There is no point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Rondeau: In spite of the members opposite continuing to interrupt the speech, on behalf of all Manitobans, including the business community, of which the member opposite must know very little, what we have is a government that is supporting the business community as far as the builders and those. I know that, when I met with the manufacturing companies, they mentioned that they really appreciate the Power Smart program. They appreciate our efforts to avoid rate shock.
When I talked about the conservation
issues, I think it is really important to mention that we are a leader in the
geothermal heat pumps. It is interesting that the member from Dauphin-Roblin
and myself both have geothermal heat pumps in our houses because we believe in
conservation. I know the member opposite from Steinbach may believe that we
should burn fossil fuels to warm up the entire province, to warm up the
environment because he does not believe in
It is also interesting that the members opposite, the Liberal Party and the Tory Party, also are against seniors. They are against people who are on fixed incomes. I look at this: "We believe as the New Democratic Party the following:" and I ask you to listen to the quote, "Woodsworth once said, 'What we desire for ourselves we desire for all.'" We believe that. We believe that we need a house that has heat in it. We believe that all Manitobans need a house that is safe and warm.
What you do is you are believing your philosophy. What you do is you put your political philosophy in front of compassion and caring for others. So what you said is that you do not care about the seniors. You do not care about those on fixed income. You do not care about those who might be affected by rate shock.
What we are saying is we are going to assist the seniors and the low-income people by providing them with some assistance on rate shock and some assistance to fix up their homes and their environments so that they can have a safe and warm environment.
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Now, the Liberal Party might bleat and say, "Oh, it is important that we let the market control." I am shocked that the members from the Liberal Party, or, actually, they do not have an official standing, but I am surprised that the members opposite continue to say, "We do not care about the seniors. We want the markets to completely take over and we do not care about those parts of our constituency that cannot afford the rate shock."
What we believe is we should concentrate on those people who need support. So what we have said is that philosophically we are going to stand beside the seniors. We are going to stand beside the low-income people. We are going to stand beside the moderate-income people, and what we are going to do–
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Point of Order
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Emerson, on a point of order.
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the honourable minister is making an assumption that people simply do not understand. I think what he needs to understand is that we simply fail to understand how this NDP government can utilize the cleanest energy in the world to subsidize non-renewable fuels in the marketplace.
Most of that money will
end up in the pockets of Ralph Klein, the Premier of Alberta, and we simply
cannot understand how this government is going to try to portray itself as
being
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Government House Leader, on the same point of order.
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Ever since the introduction of the government's plan to contain home heating costs, we have both the independent members and the opposition opposing that plan last Friday, I suspect prematurely, and now they are trying to get out of their position that is on the record and that is not in the interest of the public. I know they are trying to get out of that mess, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps they can get out of it by standing and debating this matter, not standing on points of order and abusing the rules of the House.
It is a matter, Mr. Speaker, that should be the subject of proper debate. I do not hear them speaking whatsoever to the bill.
Mr. Speaker: Before making
my ruling, I just want to remind all honourable members that points of order
are to be raised to point out to the Speaker a breach of a rule or a departure
from our
All members who wish to speak will have the opportunity, and if they disagree with something I think that would be the appropriate time to be addressing it because points of order should not be used for debate.
So the honourable member does not have a point of order. It is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Rondeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, I only hope that the members opposite would get up and speak to the bill rather than continuing to interrupt and raise points of order inappropriately. What I am trying to do is say how this bill is good and it is good for businesses, which I explained. It is good for the construction industry and the renovation industry. It is good for low-income Manitobans. It is good for moderate-income Manitobans.
* (15:40)
What I want to explain to the members opposite is that this is not using more energy. What this is doing, Power Smart, which saves energy–and I say it slowly so the members opposite can understand–if you look at wind energy, wind energy uses the wind. It is renewable energy, and it creates renewable energy. So we do not have to use fossil fuels. Geothermal energy, geothermal is a heat pump that uses heat from the ground and then you do not have to use fossil fuels. I have it in my house. My energy bills are less because we use a renewable, environmentally friendly heat source. Biogas, which is part of our recent initiatives, is using renewable resources rather than non-renewable resources to create gas, and the same with diesel.
The member opposite, from Emerson, is very confused about whether these are renewable or non-renewable energy. What this is doing is we are creating renewable energy sources to save energy. What we are doing is we are creating Power Smart initiatives, and what we are doing, it has been a very successful program, Power Smart, what has been able to happen is people who are on electrical have been able to conserve energy.
The conservation that we have done has saved millions of dollars, of which we can then export to the States at a higher price to benefit all Manitobans. It is a simple, simple understanding that you should be able to get. So I will say it slowly. What we want to do is we want to take the energy sources that we are saving and conserving and sell them to other jurisdictions, like the recent power sale to Ontario, like the other one to the States. What we will do is we will sell this energy to the States and make extra revenue which will benefit Manitobans. What we want to do is also extend that same benefit to gas users, because Power Smart has been very effective, and I think Manitobans understand that what we could do is invest now, give them a Power Smart where they can environmentally change their habitat so that they can conserve energy and so that the saving is not just for this year. it is for multiple years. Now I know that businesses get it. I know that most groups get it. I hope that members opposite will soon be able to get it.
The other one, when we start talking about
market-driven, I want to take note of what has happened in the past, MTS. I
will explain it to members opposite, we have Hydro, Manitoba Hydro, has not had
huge rate increases. We have been considered very, very low-cost for
electricity for businesses and for consumers. So what we have done is that we
have managed to moderate the increases in Hydro because of export sales. So
what we have done is that we have used to our benefit as far as businesses, and
I talked to a lot of businesses that say they are located in
So it is interesting that in 1998 the tax rate was 9 percent; in 1999, and if you look now what we are doing is, we actually have a tax rate of 4.5 percent–we recently announced it–and 4 percent for small- and medium-sized businesses. That is really nice because what has happened, it has dropped by 50 percent; under our regime it has dropped by 50 percent. So the members opposite who keep on professing to be friends of business want to raise the energy costs; they want to raise the taxes; and they do not want to provide any assistance or support to keep the jobs here. I do not know what they want to do for the industry, but I know under our watch, it has grown by $10 billion in five years. Under their watch it was pretty well stagnant.
So now I look at the other issues. When we
start talking about what we are trying to do, it is we are conserving, we are
planning for the future. Now we look at the seniors. Members opposite, when
they sold MTS, the rates went up 67 percent, 67 percent. What that is is that
is not protecting seniors. What that is is that is hurting seniors. What we
want to do is allow people a long-term benefit of the utility. So it is not a
huge benefit to the ratepayers when you sell the MTS shares. What happens is
those people who are shareholders, of which members opposite may hold shares,
but those people who hold shares received the biggest benefit. The people who
paid for that benefit are the consumers. What we are saying is that all
consumers of gas and electricity in
I think what we want to do is look at where we are as far as support. I wanted to talk a little bit about corporations. Under the former government, of course, they did not drop taxes. They did not drop taxes at all. It is only under our government, the first government since the Second World War, that we actually dropped corporate taxes, and I am pleased to see that. We are also moderating the rates for gas for these large consumers of gas. So here we are, the NDP party, who is helping the seniors, helping small business, helping the construction, helping corporations, helping moderate income and, again, helping all Manitobans by conserving.
When you talk about Kyoto, and I noticed that members opposite would scream as if Kyoto is a bad word, I think what we have to do is make sure that we plan for the future. Members opposite, including the Liberal Party, wanted us to give money back to each consumer and look at what happened. During the Liberal government, the federal government home heating rebate fiasco of a few years ago, they gave cheques to prisoners. They gave cheques to people who had never paid that money. What we are trying to do is we are trying to create the Power Smart program so all Manitobans can conserve energy and save costs. What we are trying to do is do it so that it makes sense.
Now I know the members opposite might leap from their chairs that it is important to have the rate shock and change it so that they hurt poor people. They believe in market value except when it benefits themselves. I know that we believe on this side stabilization and affordable energy is important.
Now I want to tell a story that actually scared me during the first election, about two years after the first election, and I was out canvassing. It was kind of cold, it was late November; I was knocking on some doors, and I knocked on this older resident's door. It was kind of cold in her house and she was dressed up in a coat and all this. I talked to her, and I said, "Why are you doing this?" She was basically on a small, small pension, and she was trying to stay warm. What happened was she did not know about the guaranteed income supplement from the federal government because you had to apply for it. What I did was, that day, we went out, we got the forms filled out, we got all the things done and sent it. She ended up with a guaranteed income supplement, and she actually could almost heat her house. From that day on, I tried to do some canvassing because I think it is important for people to live in a house that has some heat.
Now members opposite may think it is more important to have the prices go with the world price. I believe it is important for all Manitobans to live in a house that has heat. I would be with the government that does believe in that. If I hear criticism from it as we do here, I would stand up for a government and a society that allows people to have a standard of living and an ability to keep warm before I would say we had to go to the world price. That is the type of government we stand for.
I also believe that we need to look after
our businesses. When you start talking about our climate, we are often in
competition with all places in the world. One of the costs we have in
* (15:50)
So it becomes important to work with them so they have time to adjust their business practices. We do not want to have hundreds of people thrown out of business. We do not want absolute quick changes. So what we want to do is we want to moderate the prices; not control them totally. What we are trying to do is have a buffer so people have time to adjust in their businesses so that they can stay in business while they compete globally.
So what this does is it provides a buffer, a time where people and businesses can adjust. I know it is only two years. But that becomes an important two years.
So, when we have specialists from Manitoba Hydro who go as Power Smart, and businesses also have a program where you have experts go in and work with the businesses to figure out how to adjust their energy costs and figure out how to incorporate special technology, that gives them a chance to buy that technology, a chance to integrate that technology so that businesses can adjust and compete.
So, with our weather and our climate, we do not have a choice. We do have to heat the buildings. So what we want to do is make sure the businesses do not get a 44 percent rate shock that the Liberals want to give them. We do not want to give the businesses a 44 percent increase on that, because I know it would hurt our steel industry.
I am going to
Now, the member opposite may say that the seniors should get a 44 percent rate increase. I ask the member opposite to talk to the federal people and give the seniors–the Old Age Security, the Canada Pension Plan do not go up by 42 percent. I would encourage the member opposite to talk to his federal cousins and give the seniors a decent increase, maybe not 44 percent, maybe 20 percent or 30 percent. But the member opposite says they should get a gas price increase of 44 percent. Maybe he should encourage his federal cousins to give seniors more of an increase. That way maybe more seniors will eventually vote for you.
I must add, you do not have to just give the seniors an increase in manila envelopes. They can get it by normal cheques and I am sure they will accept it.
The member across is talking about environmentally friendly. This does deal with geothermal. It does deal with conservation, new windows. I would like to point out that when you are talking about the program, you actually can get a 100 percent of, I believe, it is $500, yes, 100 percent of $500, or $500 worth of insulation as part of this program, and that will save money for a long, long time.
So what we want to do is, as our founders would say: "What we desire for ourselves, we desire for all." Here it is. We desire seniors to have a comfortable, warm place to live. We believe that we should give low and moderate, all Manitobans in fact, a chance to be able to moderate their rate increases so they can invest in insulation, they can invest in home improvements, new doors, new windows, so that they can save money for long term, forever, by putting money into their home at a decent program.
We believe, this government believes that we need to support businesses, small, medium and large businesses, so that what we do is, not only do we have a competitive tax regime, but we allow them the time and flexibility to accommodate the 44 percent rate increase in gas. Those businesses, I know we have decreased their taxes considerably, but we also have to worry about their input costs. So we will continue to support the businesses.
I know we will also look towards future
generations. When we are talking about future generations, I know that we are
talking about putting in geothermal as far as Waverley West. I know the Air
Canada hangar has geothermal heating for one of the larger facilities; I know a
lot of people are doing new green buildings, like the new Hydro headquarters,
which is a wonderful green building. The
So I know members
opposite may figure out whom they are supporting when they vote against Bill
11, because, if they are not supporting any of those groups, we wonder how many
will be sitting as members in this Chamber in the future. We believe that we
should be a government for all Manitobans, for all people, and we believe that
our role is not to believe in the world market where we have to push the
instant that things go up, that we have to force the seniors to pay it
instantly. What we believe is we have a role in government and our role in
government is to continue to support seniors, citizens and business in our
economy and that does not mean a handout. That means giving them assistance, a
hand up to continue to compete, a step up to compete. So we believe
philosophically in
Mr. Speaker: Okay, no more speakers? Okay, when this matter is again before the House–
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. When this matter is again before the House it will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Russell (Mr. Derkach)–
An Honourable Member: Who?
Mr. Speaker: Russell.
House Business
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent so the House will adjourn after Routine Proceedings on Wednesday? This is regarding the AMM convention, and further discover if there is unanimous consent that on Thursday there is no votes and no quorum?
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent so that the House will adjourn after Routine Proceedings on Wednesday, and is there unanimous consent that Thursday there will be no votes and no quorum requirements? Is there agreement? [Agreed]
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, would you please call second readings, Bill 15, then Bill 12, and then debate on second readings, Bills 5, 6 and 9?
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask the assistance of the House when we are dealing with House business, because it is very, very difficult to hear, so I ask the co-operation of all honourable members when we are dealing with the House business.
Hon. Scott Smith (Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Mines (Mr. Rondeau), that Bill 15, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of this House.
His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of the bill and I table the message.
Motion presented.
* (16:00)
Mr. Speaker: His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor has been advised of this bill and the bill has been tabled.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act is a progressive legislation–
Mr. Speaker: A correction. The message was tabled, not the bill. Slight correction.
Mr. Smith: Mr. Speaker, The Emergency Measures Amendment Act is progressive
legislation that provides practical and useful tools for emergency managers in
Mr. Speaker, the creation of emergency prevention orders provides an interim step before a state of emergency to enable effective disaster mitigation activities by municipalities.
Municipalities have two options when faced with an emergency now, the normal state of business or the state of an emergency. This all-or-nothing approach does not recognize that there is often an interim period when a disaster is possible but not yet probable. The powers resulting from a state of emergency are not available during this period as a present or imminent emergency does not exist, and therefore the conditions for declaring a state of emergency are not present.
Emergency prevention orders will enable proactive mitigation work by providing additional powers to municipalities but not the full powers available in a state of emergency. These powers include ability to control or limit access to an area, order evacuations of people or livestock and access private property with an order from council.
Mr. Speaker, in 1994, the UN adopted the Yokohama Strategy to reproduce and reduce the impact of disasters in the 21st century. This included a call to adopt or modify, where necessary, legislation to support disaster risk reduction.
The language recognizes that the on-site management of an emergency is the job of municipal or provincial first responders, and EMO's work is to manage those aspects of the emergency away from and in support of the rest of the emergency operation.
This does not amount to a change in EMO's
work. This mandate is consistent with their job historically and the role of
the provincial EMOs in emergency management in
The amendments will require provincial government departments to develop emergency programs including business continuity plans. Planning of this nature is prudent and a valuable requirement of and for an emergency such as a pandemic, where planning shows the importance of business-continuity planning in particular.
Presently, offences for failing to comply with an order under the act are a fine of up to $10,000 and/or one year in prison. These amendments will create a separate penalty for refusing an evacuation order whereby the penalty will be a fine of up to $50,000 and/or one year in prison.
Refusing to evacuate complicates the management of an emergency and could put first responders at risk when trying to rescue a person from a more dangerous situation. The seriousness of this offence should be dealt with more severely.
There is a new requirement for municipalities to provide situation reports or impact assessment to Manitoba EMO when they request this information. Timely and complete information is perhaps the most critical component of effective emergency management. This amendment will allow EMO to gather information and ensure a province-wide understanding of an emergency and to effectively co-ordinate the emergency at a province-wide level.
There are also a number of housekeeping and clarification or organizational matters dealt with in this bill. These amendments are minor in nature and do not represent significant changes to the present requirements in the act.
Mr. Speaker, emergency planning and
emergency management is critically important to
These have been brought forward by the
Manitoba Chiefs' association, the AMM and, certainly, many emergency providers
in the
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Steinbach (Mr. Goertzen), that we adjourn debate.
Motion agreed to.
Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade (Mr. Smith), that Bill 12, The Highways and Transportation Amendment Act, be now read a second time and referred to a committee of the House.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable minister will have to use a different seconder, because the honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs–
An Honourable Member: He is sitting in his seat.
Mr. Speaker: Well, he is in his seat, but you said the honourable Minister of Industry, Economic Development and Trade, but it is Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade.
It has been moved by the honourable Minister of Transportation and Government Services, seconded by the honourable Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Trade, that Bill 12, The Highways and Transportation Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Mr. Lemieux: I would like to put in just a couple of comments on the record with regard to this bill. Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I am pleased to rise and speak today on the amendments that my department is introducing into Bill 12, The Highways and Transportation Amendment Act. There are two primary issues addressed under this bill: No. 1, improvements to the process for removal of unauthorized structures from provincial highways; and No. 2, an update to the antiquated penalty provisions of this act.
Number one, with regard to the process for removal of unauthorized structures, the proposed amendments will allow the department to respond quickly and effectively to signs and structures placed illegally on provincial highways. Illegal signs and structures on highway rights-of-way often pose a threat to the public safety due to the design characteristics and inappropriate placement and construction materials used. They create problems for motorists' visibility, highway maintenance crews and general traffic safety of on-road and off-road vehicles. The act prohibits the placing of materials and structures on a departmental road except as permitted in the act or with consent of the minister.
However, the current process for removal of unauthorized materials is based on whether the minister knows who owns the object, not whether it was authorized to be there. It is only after the owner has been given a notice to remove the object, time to remove it and then fails to comply can the department take action to remove the unauthorized object.
Mr. Speaker, I believe this is an inordinately generous process, given that the material was not supposed to be placed there in the first place. The proposed amendments simplify and re-orient the process to focus on whether the material or structure was authorized for placement.
Where an object is placed without the required permission, an authorized employee of the department can give verbal direction to remove the sign immediately or by a specified date. If the owner does not comply, the object can be removed without further notice. Where the object has been authorized for placement, formal notice to repair or remove the object will be given before any action is taken.
New authority is provided in this bill
which authorizes the department to immediately remove an authorized structure
without notice where the object poses an immediate threat to the safety of
users of the highway and right-of-way. The amendments were developed in
response to numerous complaints from the public and requests from numerous
municipalities to deal with the increasing number of signs that are cluttering
up the provincial highways rights-of-way. We have talked about the many
different pillars with regard to our transportation vision in the
Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Emerson (Mr. Penner), that we adjourn debate.
Motion agreed to.
* (16:10)
Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 5, The Dental Hygienists Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Penner).
What is the will of the House?
Some Honourable Members: Stand
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed]
Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General): Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to put some brief
remarks on the record. I am certainly aware first hand of the efforts that have
been made by dental hygienists in
Mr. Speaker, I think that this legislation speaks highly to the importance of dental hygienists as, indeed, a profession. This legislation will now recognize them as a distinct profession that would be given the power to protect the public interest by way of a self-governing professional statute.
Mr. Speaker, I think this legislation also speaks to a gender issue, quite frankly. For all of those reasons, I look forward to having the input of members opposite in seeing this matter go to committee and passage. Thank you.
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 Pembina.
Bill 6–The Dental
Association Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: Bill 6, The Dental Association Amendment Act, standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina (Mr. Penner).
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina? [Agreed]
It has been agreed to. It will remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Pembina.
Any speakers? Okay.
Mr. Speaker: We will move
on to Bill 9, The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act, standing in the name
of the honourable Member for
What is the will of the House?
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Leave it
remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Okay, it has been agreed to and will
remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for
Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Well, Mr. Speaker, I put most of my comments on the record already about my disappointment with the government using a lot of lightweight legislation. Notwithstanding that it needs to be done and that there are some valuable aspects to the legislative agenda that is before us, but really, in terms of the meat of debate, we find this agenda somewhat lacking. Certainly, in relationship to this act, which also needs work to be done, it is of a housekeeping nature.
I want to point out that at the very time that we are debating whether or not there is liability for the directors, the board of directors who administer the farm protection act, at the very time that we are discussing this, the board of directors and the management of Ranchers Choice are touring Manitoba, advertising heavily, attempting to pull together the investors that they need to get on with what is a very important project within the context of the large number of agricultural producers and their desire to establish a base from which they can have some predictability as to how they will be marketing their aged animals in this province.
At the same time we have infrastructure
issues in a number of communities across this province, including my own area
in which we have a hog plant that has been established there for about 15
years, and I think we are going to see the local newspapers this week be very
concerned about the fact that it still waits for some word upon whether or not
it will, and the community will, receive any support to deal with their
infrastructure demands in terms of disposal of effluent. That, combined with
the fact that we would like to additionally expand the cattle killing capacity
in this province, and there is an ability to expand that capacity at the same
time as we solve the problem for the hog-slaughter capacity in the Neepawa
community, and we are sitting here as legislators debating whether or not there
should be liability for the board of directors. If I was a member of the board
of directors, I would be happy to see that discussion, but in the overall
picture of what needs to be done on behalf of rural
I just wish, and I want to put it on the
record on behalf of my constituents, I sincerely wish that they would take their
responsibility more seriously in terms of developing opportunity in rural
One of the things that I find very difficult, being both a farm operator in my past and, to some degree, currently, and being a representative of the area in this Chamber, I find it very disappointing that we are being cast in the position of constantly being required to sound like we are complaining about not having sufficient opportunity. That has to be put into the context that we know where we want to go, we know what needs to be done, and our frustration is driven by the fact that this government does not seem to be listening, nor does it accept our view of how we would like to move significant sections of the rural Manitoba economy forward.
That being the case, Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that my frustration and my concern with where this government is not moving is motivated by the fact that there are a lot of very good people out there, some of whom are approaching very difficult decisions in their future. This is not quite the same as whether or not a particular plant survives, whether or not particular salaried jobs stay in place. It is about the nature of our rural landscape, frankly, that is at question right now. We are seeing something that I would liken to an industrial revolution within agriculture, and I do not think that this government has adequately demonstrated that they know where they want to move on this issue and whether or not they can actually provide the leadership that is being so urgently required by people that I represent, other members on this side of the House represent, and at least two members on the government side represent.
So, with those comments on the record, Mr. Speaker, I will allow my comments to stand.
* (16:20)
Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): Similarly, do I want to put a few words on the record. In support of the protection of board members, boards of directors against lawsuit, I think that it is time that that was done. This province has numerous boards of directors that serve to benefit the people of this province, and certainly I believe that they should be afforded that protection. I know that some of the corporations, such as the public insurance corporations and others, do now protect their members from lawsuit up to a certain point, but I guess, also, when you look at the Crocus board and the Crocus Fund, it is questionable whether those board members at the Crocus Fund would have been protected to adequate levels. Yet, and again, when I look at this bill, there is nothing to give me comfort that those kinds of boards would have been protected from liability under the current situation as Crocus stands. I think it is time that this government admit that they made a very significant mistake with Crocus, that they did not do due diligence on the investments that were made by Crocus and therefore put in jeopardy the investments that thousands and thousands of individual Manitobans made into the Crocus Fund. They invested their pension funds. Many of the older shareholders of Crocus have their pension funds stuck in Crocus, and, again, this will be a severe blow to them.
I want to spend a bit of time, Mr. Speaker, if I would be allowed, to talk about some of the issues that are pertinent to the protection act, as this is called, the agricultural protection act. When you look at what some of these boards actually rule on and are going to be put in place to implement and be governed under the regulations of some of the new legislation that we have seen, one has to wonder what kinds of liabilities these boards might, in fact, incur and what sorts of hardships might be experienced by the farm operators in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair
I think, maybe, at some point in time farmers will have to start demanding protection from government ministers such as we currently experience in this province. When I read the regulations of The Water Protection Act and when I see the huge areas in my constituency which will not be allowed to use any fertility products at all anymore, that leads me to believe that there will be no cattle allowed in that area. There will be no hogs allowed in that area, and one has to wonder at the huge number of deer and bear and all those kinds of animals. Will we have to take some action to get rid of them as well? We do not know. Neither do the farmers know. Neither do the farmers who have farmed in those areas, family farms that have been in those areas for decades, indeed better than a century, some of them. These farms are today expressing amazement at the audacity of this government in the implementation of the regulations that are being proposed.
I would, indeed, suggest to the honourable Member for Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) that he of all people should be very concerned about how the new regulations are going to affect his area. Will those people that now have large livestock operations be able to keep on operating in the north Interlake? We know there are very high water levels there. We know there are many areas with permeable soils, rocky soils and those kinds of things, and when I look at the regulations, when I look at the maps, I sincerely wonder whether that member of the Legislature will be able to go back to his riding and say, "Oh, yes, you will be protected. You do not have to worry." Well, I ask the question: Will they be protected or will they be allowed to operate in those areas?
I find it very interesting, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we now have a situation in place where we have drafted very, very stringent rules and regulations for the livestock operations in this province, including manure management regulations and including now the fertility regulations under The Water Protection Act and also these lagoons that are being built–and we call them earthen lagoons for the storage of animal waste–all the provisions that have to be abided by under the regulation, such as liners being put in the lagoons now to ensure that not a drop of waste will permeate into the soil and contaminate our water. We all agree with that. We do not disagree that is a bad thing.
However, what I find most astounding when I drive around my constituency and, indeed, the rest of the province, none of those provisions apply to our urban centres, the villages and towns and cities in many areas that have large lagoons. I believe the city of Winnipeg even has some of them, large lagoons where human waste is stored, then after some form of treatment, there are many of them, I understand, many different, and I understand there are no test wells under these lagoons to see whether there is any–and no liners required for any of these large lagoons, none at all.
Yet this government sees nothing wrong with that, nothing wrong with dumping human waste every fall when these lagoons are lowered to be able to accommodate the effluent in the winter months. Every fall they are allowed to dump their waste into the ditches that run down into the streams and into the rivers and into the lakes.
No law against that, no law against that whatsoever, no wells required, no testing required, no soil tests required, no fertility tests required on the effluent coming out of these lagoons. Why is that, Mr. Deputy Speaker? Why is that? Why are we so enamoured with looking at the animal waste that is without question the best organic fertility products that you could buy anywhere on this globe,and yet we are condemning it and putting it to test and adding huge, additional costs to our agricultural producers?
Then I want to go one step further. Why is
it that we as society allow the dumping of raw sewage into our floodway? Why is
it that we allow that? Why is that we allow raw sewage to be dumped in the
I tell you this government five years, six years ago would have gone up in arms if any farmer would have been ever caught dumping livestock waste into a river. They would have gone ballistic. The honourable Member for the Interlake (Mr. Nevakshonoff) says, "Do you mean people like Betty Green?" I do not know whom he is referring to when he says Betty Green, but, obviously, one of his constituents. I do not know. I am not sure.
An Honourable Member: I wonder if she votes for him.
Mr. Penner: I am not sure whether she votes for him or not or whether he has her on his executive. I do not know.
So I would suggest to you Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is of concern to many people that this government makes such a distinction, such a clear distinction between farmers and the rest of society. We are singling out the agricultural, the food producers of this province. We are singling them out and saying, "You are the bad guys. You are bad and we will do everything in our power to make sure that you will do as we direct and legislate."
Legislation we have seen. We have seen all kinds of legislation come out of this government, all directed at the agriculture community. It is an attack on agriculture, the likes of which I have never seen in my life by any government anywhere in this country. It is unprecedented, the attack of our agriculture community that we are seeing here.
* (16:30)
I would imagine that when one takes a look
at the 21 years' test results of the Red River, and all this, I guess, was
perpetrated by a speech that the Minister of Water Stewardship (Mr. Ashton)
held about four or five years ago when this government came into power. He said
that it was the Red River and its tributaries that were putting most of the
fertility products, such as phosphorous and nitrates, into Lake Winnipeg, it
was largely the
Mr. Speaker in the Chair
Well, I went to the trouble of searching
out whether there had been any testing done on the Red River and the rest of
the rivers and streams in
Then I look south of the
border, which the minister has constantly pointed at that those are the
culprits, those Americans are the culprits, they are polluting our water. I
looked at the results from
An Honourable Member: Does not make sense.
Mr. Penner: Does not make sense at all.
Now I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what
would the nitrate levels on some of the other streams and rivers have done?
Well, some of them have gone up. But maybe we should ask the question: What
happened between St. Norbert and just north of
An Honourable Member: What?
Mr. Penner: A very
substantive rise in the phosphates and nitrates in that part of the river
running through the city of
Why is it then that this government would
not look at those kinds of test results before they implemented these kinds of
regulations that we are going to have to deal with? Why is that? Why would they
not take the scientific evidence that is available to them that demonstrates
that it is not the farm community that is, as they have presented, so polluting
our waterways. Why is that? Is it simply that the minister wants to make a mark
for himself before he leaves office? Is it because he wants to be known as the
person who presumably was responsible for saving
Well, it is interesting to note also, when
you look at the results of the fishery in Lake Winnipeg over the last 10 years,
the fishery has never yielded as well in the history of the record-keeping of
the fisheries in
I think it is important to note that some of the things that we have seen and heard from this government lately in regulation and legislation are going to be detrimental from an economic standpoint to the agricultural community, the likes of which we have not seen before.
We had an environmental officer visit our farm last fall. We had two fuel tanks built on our farm, 2500 gallons each, and they are made of three-sixteenths inch steel. You cannot buy tanks like that from the market. We had them custom built, and we were told by the end of 2006 we would have to shred them because they were unsafe and I said, "So tell me what is wrong with them." "Well," he said, "You have not got a serial number on them." "No," I said, "It was a local custom welder that welded them for us, custom-built them." But, because it has not got a serial number we cannot register them, therefore they are not going to be allowed under the new environmental regulations. That is going to cost our farm between $30,000 and $60,000 to replace those. Can we afford it? Two years without crops. It is going to pretty hard. I am going to have to go ask the banker very nicely whether we can borrow that kind of money to replace those tanks. For what reason? For what reason? There is no reason. This government cannot explain it to us,
So we are doing some very questionable things by regulations without determining what the end results will be and what the end effects will be.
Will it, in fact, be beneficial to nature? Will it be beneficial to our waterways? Will it be beneficial to our soils in the long term by preventing natural, the most organic fertilizers to be used to raise crops and to raise hay and to raise cattle and hogs and whatever livestock we need to maintain our population? I question that, but this government has spent so much time advertising and publicizing that the general population, which knows nothing about farming anymore, believes them. I think it is sad. It is a sad day for society that we painted our farmers into a box as polluters and destroyers of the environment. I think that is really sad, and I wonder if we would have done that to our fishermen and others in society that have made their living off the natural landscape around them as farmers must.
That leads me to another issue which is as important, because there are boards that have been struck here to also protect this part of the industry, and that is the free trade discussions that are going on in Geneva right now, and the week following or two will go on to Hong Kong, and I understand that it is our minister's intent to go to Hong Kong and be there when those discussions are taking place. If she takes the right message down there, if she takes the right message to the federal minister, then I commend her for going, taking the time to go. However, it is also important to note that, as of today in this House, she seemed to have no plan, or no clear direction that she could offer this House, or a clear view of what she was going to recommend to the federal government.
* (16:40)
I think that is another clear indication
that this government has spent a huge amount of time advertising and promoting
itself as the saviour for the agriculture community. I look at the BSE
situation and how much money they spent there. I look in advertising and
promoting and promotion and all the other issues, the two years of huge amounts
of rain that we have had that were destroying crops all over, and the CAIS
program that they participated in. We warned them then that this CAIS program
would not work and it is not, and yet this minister could not today identify
for us clearly the message that she was going to take out of
I think it is important to note, Mr. Speaker, that there are countries in the world such as the United States and Europe and many other smaller countries that are today not looking at subsidizing agriculture or viewing their agriculture industry as a subsidized industry. They are looking at it from far more of a social direction, because they have told me personally when I was in Europe that it is much cheaper for them to keep their people living in those smaller communities than it would be to allow nine million people to move into a city like Berlin, for instance, and provide the infrastructure to house these people in these large cities.
They said just look at the city of
They are promoting
smaller industries in these smaller communities, and it is somewhat similar to
what the previous Filmon administration was doing in
They said now we cater to the tourist
industry and that small little farm becomes part of our tourist promotion
package. That is
Well, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the
farmers that I know have spent so much money maintaining their soils, making
such huge changes in their operation over the last decade, two decades, it is
shocking. The changes that you have seen when you drive out to
I want to conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that it is time that this NDP government should realize that you need your agriculture producers, you need your farmers. You need them to be able to produce food for society. Oh yes, we can go to Safeway; we do not need the farmers to produce food, but if Safeway quit buying from those very farmers, the store shelves will be empty.
It is time that this government recognized the value of your rural-urban communities. Do not abandon them. Do not legislate them out of business. Support them. Support them, and you will have a vibrant economy for many years to come.
Mr. Cliff Cullen (
We would hope that the government would
focus more of its energies on dealing with the real issues out in rural
Mr. Speaker, I think this really speaks to
the very tight crunch they were in, in the farm community. These are all
individual farmers that are probably between the ages of 45 and 55 who should
be in the prime farming years of their careers who are being forced out of
business because this government did not recognize the acute problems we have
in rural
* (16:50)
Now, these young people will be probably
travelling to
My honourable colleague from Emerson
talked a little bit about some of the regulations that are coming forward, and
he is correct. Those particular regulations will be greatly impacting
The other thing, Mr. Speaker, the
government keeps falling back on the programs in place, and I speak about crop
insurance and the CAIS program. The government feels that these programs are
protecting our farmers in
Speaking of revenue, when we look at the
CAIS program that the Province and the feds keep falling back on, I think they
are starting to recognize that it is an issue. I read almost on a daily basis
where the Keystone Agricultural Producers say that this particular program is
not working for
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, the CAIS program, it is a two-year backlog in generating any income for farmers. It is nothing that those particular producers can bank on, so that is what makes it a really tight cash flow crunch for them when they go to face their bankers this season.
Mr. Speaker, that is all I really wanted
to say on this particular bill. It is a very insignificant bill. It does speak
to just one element in The Farm Practices Protection Act. Obviously, it is
something that has to be addressed, but really we would hope that the
government would deal with the specific issues of the day that
I thank you, Mr. Speaker,
and I would like to turn it over to our Agriculture critic, the honourable
member from
Mr. Ralph Eichler (
As some of my colleagues have pointed out and put on the record, we are very disappointed that this government has not worked harder in trying to bring some resolve to the issue regarding agriculture within this province.
We went through three years of desperation for the farming community. We have had the drought in 2003, BSE in 2003. We had frost and flooding in the fall of 2004, and in 2005 we had nothing but more and more rain. We have never seen agriculture in the desperation that it is in now.
We would like to put on the record, as well, the member from Emerson talked about the regulations with respect to The Water Protection Act and there are lots of problems there. When we dealt with this bill in the last session, we said that the problem would be within the regulations, and this government has held true to their form. We are very disappointed with what this government has brought forward, and we know that there are a number of recommendations that we will certainly be bringing forward, also the fact that I know the hog producers, the cattle producers and the KAP organizations have a lot of concerns with this particular regulation that has been brought forward, Mr. Speaker.
I know that the minister is meeting today with some of the farm groups with respect to the World Trade Organization. Hopefully, the minister will move forward on some of those recommendations. At the 11th hour of the day, this minister is starting to bring forward some concerns in regard to the World Trade. For the first time in many years, this government has the opportunity to make a significant difference. They need to show leadership. They need to show that they have something on the plate for our farmers.
I know from talking to my
colleague from Pembina, he has several people down in his area who are trying
to decide their future. The member from
He talked about the CAIS program–
An Honourable Member: If you do not have a grow op, you cannot make any money.
Mr. Eichler: Exactly. The type of farming that is making money is being shut down on a daily basis with this concept of more officers that are out there, and that is the grow op business. We certainly do not want to use that as our foothold for the agricultural sector. But, Mr. Speaker, all joking aside, we have to be sure that farmers have a sustainable, meaningful plan that is going to work for all producers.
With this bill that has been brought forward, Mr. Speaker, we would like to see it being moved on to committee. We would like the House to deal with this in an efficient manner and move it forward. So, having said that, we will look forward to this moving forward to committee.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is second reading of Bill 9, The Farm Practices Protection Amendment Act.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? [Agreed]
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it five o'clock? [Agreed]
The hour being 5 p.m., the House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).