LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday,
July 8, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Stella Dyck, Tena Froebe, Karen Huisman and others requesting the Minister of
Health (Mr. Orchard) to consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the
level it was prior to the 1993‑1994 budget.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Diane Mauws, Helen Alexander, Phyllis Hayhurst and others requesting the
Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) to consider restoring the Children's Dental
Program to the level it was prior to the '93‑94 budget.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Maloway). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?
(agreed)
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS
several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment
health care programs such as the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS
the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been
recognized as extremely cost‑effective and critical for many families in
isolated communities; and
WHEREAS
the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the
providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses
and assistants providing this service; and
WHEREAS
preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS
several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment
health care programs such as the Children's Dental Program; and
WHEREAS
the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 17 years and has been
recognized as extremely cost‑effective and critical for many families in
isolated communities; and
WHEREAS
the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the
providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses
and assistants providing this service; and
WHEREAS
preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Ms. Cerilli). It complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
over 1,000 young adults are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade
their education through the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting
in increased welfare costs for the City of
WHEREAS
the provincial government is now proposing to eliminate the Student Social
Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
eliminating the Student Social Allowances Program will result in more than a
thousand young people being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting
further full‑time education, resulting in more long‑term costs for
city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Santos). It
complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the
rules. Is it the will of the House to
have the petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
over 1,000 young adults are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade
their education through the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting
in increased welfare costs for the City of
WHEREAS
the provincial government is now proposing to eliminate the Student Social
Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
eliminating the Student Social Allowances Program will result in more than a
thousand young people being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting
further full‑time education, resulting in more long‑term costs for
city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Chomiak). It complies with
the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
over 1,000 young adults are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade
their education through the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting
in increased welfare costs for the City of
WHEREAS
the provincial government is now proposing to eliminate the Student Social
Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
eliminating the Student Social Allowances Program will result in more than a
thousand young people being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting
further full‑time education, resulting in more long‑term costs for
city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member (Mr. Reid). It complies with the
privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read? (agreed)
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
over 1,000 young adults are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade
their education through the Student Social Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS
the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting
in increased welfare costs for the City of
WHEREAS
the provincial government is now proposing to eliminate the Student Social
Allowances Program; and
WHEREAS
eliminating the Student Social Allowances Program will result in more than a
thousand young people being forced onto city welfare with no means of getting
further full‑time education, resulting in more long‑term costs for
city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE
your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Eighth
Report of the Standing Committee on Economic Development.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Economic
Development presents the following as its Eighth Report.
Your
committee met on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the
Mr.
Jim Kilgour, assistant director, and Mr. Bill Kinnear, past director, financial
services branch, Industry, Trade and Tourism, provided such information as was
requested with respect to the annual report and business of the Manitoba
Development Corporation.
Your
committee has considered the annual report of the Manitoba Development
Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1992, and has adopted the same as
presented.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr.
Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by
the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the
committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Sixth
Report of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk: Your Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources presents the following as its Sixth Report.
Your
committee met on Tuesday, July 6, 1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Mr.
Kevin Kavanagh, chairman, and Mr. Douglas Sherwood, president and chief
executive officer, provided such information as was requested with respect to
the annual reports and business of the Crown Corporations Council.
Your
committee has considered the annual reports of the Crown Corporations Council
for the years ended December 31, 1990, December 31, 1991, and December 31,
1992, and has adopted the same as presented.
All
of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Home Care
Program
Housekeeping
Services
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier
(Mr. Filmon).
Throughout
the debate on home care, dealing with delivery of services, meals, laundry, and
housekeeping in the Home Care Program to provide for the independence and
dignity of people living in their own communities, the Minister of Health has
continually said that this is a more sophisticated approach to home care, that
they are maintaining the services, and on and on in his answers in this House.
Today,
we have a second report from the director of geriatrics at the Health Sciences
Centre that specifically states that this will cost us more in terms of the
patients of
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier:
Whom are we to believe in the debate?
Are we to believe the two directors of geriatrics in the
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased my honourable friend asked the question.
Let
me deal with the issue of the article in the Free Press today.
Mr.
Speaker, as I indicated when this issue came up, I believe on Tuesday of this
week, I indicated in the House and outside the House that the provision of home
care services will not compromise the ability to discharge individuals from
hospital because the services required and assessed will be provided. That
includes domestic services such as housekeeping if it is deemed necessary, in
addition to home care attendant, the medical services, the nurses' services.
That
is the way it has been since the inception of the program, but what is at issue
that my honourable friend the New Democrat is not willing to admit is that the
domestic services of, for instance, vacuuming the rugs, have been part of the
Home Care Program until 1985. In 1985,
under the Pawley government, a decision was made to introduce Support Services
to Seniors which would provide at charge to the seniors those domestic services
of vacuuming and laundry.
The
medical services were maintained from 1985 on as they are today, in fact are
increased.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps telling us in
this House, and this is why we want the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to answer the
question, because we have experts in geriatrics saying there is a fundamental
change and it is going to impact on the return to the communities of people.
We
are hearing from the disabled community; we are hearing from the seniors; we
are hearing from the heads of geriatrics, who are calling his own Minister of
Health's policies, health care deform, Mr. Speaker, not health care reform.
Mr.
Speaker, I want to table a memo in the House from the minister's own
department. The memo states that this is
a, quote, change in the delivery. It
states that clients in Home Care "will need to make private arrangements
for household cleaning and laundry."
It goes on further to state, "Therefore, household maintenance and
laundry services will not be provided to many of the home care clients now
receiving these services."
Can
the Premier please answer us? Whom are
we to believe, the heads of geriatrics in the
* (1340)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, let me indicate to my honourable
friend that the policy has not changed, the ability to access the service has
not changed. The same referral for
domestic services that the client will pay for today was started in 1985 by the
NDP. That is consistent.
Mr.
Speaker, I can understand the confusion, because there are those who have
phoned my office, and no doubt phoned the opposition, believing that home care,
nursing services, medical services, are being cancelled. That is not accurate. They have been increased in this budget as
they have in every single budget.
Mr.
Speaker, I can believe where one would have the wrong impression, because Dr.
Powell has indicated in the Free Press two days ago that he only got his
information about health care reform not from the department directly, but from
the Free Press or the hospital union notice board. I checked with the reporter to make sure that
was accurate.
I
have 14, minimum, meetings that Dr. Powell was at on reform of health care as
head of geriatrics services in St. Boniface, discussing the reform issues. They commenced with him on October 5, 1992,
straight through until November of last year.
Those meetings were constantly keeping people like Dr. Powell informed
about health care reform. Little wonder
there is confusion.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the minister, in answering the
question that I posed about the memo in his own department, changes the
information that was required from the question. There is a fundamental shift and change in
the delivery of home care in his own department. There is a fundamental change in terms of
people getting these services. There are
going to be fewer people provided the service than before. It says many home care clients now receiving
these services will not have them provided.
I
would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon):
Who is going to stand up for the disabled people, for the seniors in
this province, for the people who relied on home care services to live in
dignity, to work in dignity, to raise a family in dignity in
Will
this Premier finally stand up, or will he sit idly by while his Minister of
Health destroys our health care system, Mr. Speaker?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's rhetoric,
my honourable friend's alarmist statements, my honourable friend's attempt to
make a narrow, political, partisan, fearmongering issue is disgraceful.
The
memo my honourable friend tabled says household maintenance and laundry
services, domestic services, vacuuming the rugs and doing the laundry‑‑services
that since 1985 under a policy that my honourable friend sat around the cabinet
table and approved‑‑have been referred by the Continuing Care
Program for individuals to pay for those services since 1985. That is continuing today. It is even talking about $6 to $9 per hour
for vacuuming and laundry.
These
are the domestic housekeeping services that since 1985 under the policy of the
NDP have been referred to alternate suppliers and not the taxpayer‑supported
home care system. That is why, Sir, I
say nothing has changed except now, my honourable friend the New Democrat,
instead of sitting around cabinet deciding that is appropriate policy, is now
trying to deny what he did in 1985 and is in opposition today.
* (1345)
Home Care
Program
Consultations
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed except a $3‑million
program is eliminated. Nothing has
changed except 1,500 caregivers are now being told they are being privatized in
this letter. Nothing has changed except
the heads of the departments at hospitals that deliver the service are saying
this is wrong. Nothing has changed. Something should change and it should be the
minister.
My
question for the Premier (Mr. Filmon) is:
Will the Premier put this policy on hold and consult, at least consult
and talk to some people who deliver this service rather than listening to his
Minister of Health who obviously is not stating the facts as they exist, Mr.
Speaker?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when we
did consult and seek the advice of a Dr. Powell, it says that, the only time
you got information on health reform was from the Free Press or the union
notice board.
That
hardly is a reasonable approach to the amount of input that doctor had on
health care reform.
That
is the reason why there is such confusion, because my honourable friends are
wanting to leave Manitobans with the impression that the Home Care Program no
longer exists or will be cut back dramatically.
That is not right, Sir. That is not
right. The Home Care budget has
increased again this year.
I
gave to my honourable friends in Estimates, page 4500 and on‑‑and I
will share with my honourable friend again.
This year home care attendant services, which are the personal health services,
will increase by 11 percent this year.
Registered nursing will increase by 9.5 percent this year. Victorian Order of Nurses will increase by
3.6 percent this year.
That
is more medical services, and, Sir, what is going to decrease is the domestic
services of vacuuming and laundry, as has been the policy since 1985.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the
Premier (Mr. Filmon).
Will
the Premier at least consult with the officials, the caregivers, the doctors
who have spoken up, the health care workers who are contacting our office by
the dozens daily, the seniors who are affected?
Will
he at least consult with them and put the program on hold, and at least talk to
the people who are involved in this program before cutting this program? Will he at least do that?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, now you understand why citizens
would believe the Home Care Program is not going to exist, because my
honourable friend is talking about cutting this program, when hours of registered
nursing service to be purchased this year to help support the Home Care Program
will increase by 9.5 percent this year‑‑not a decrease, but an
increase of almost 10 percent.
Our
services from Victorian Order of Nurses to support the Home Care Program will
increase by almost 4 percent this year. The home care attendant program to help
people get dressed, to help people be bathed, to help people with other non‑nursing
but medical needs, will increase by 11 percent this year.
Mr.
Speaker, that is more opportunity for care, for independent living, for
betterment of life in their own homes than what was available last year. It is an increase in the program that will
make the program serve Manitobans better, not worse, and not a cut that my
honourable friend refers to.
* (1350)
APM
Management Consultants
Home Care
Program
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister does not refuse to
recognize the only letter sent out by his own department.
Mr.
Speaker, my final supplementary to the Premier (Mr. Filmon): Will the Premier at least, given that this $3‑million
program has been cut back, will he at least assure this House that Connie
Curran will not sign the fifth contract which is to review Home Care, and it
has not been signed yet?
Will
he at least promise not to let the Connie Curran gravy train be on Home Care as
well and not sign the Home Care contract while this whole thing is put on hold?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.
Speaker, it would not matter how much information I provided to my honourable
friend the New Democrat. You know, we
went through this in 1989, and I dug out all of the old letters, including a
retabling of a 1989 letter by the NDP that was four years old on the same
issue.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, my honourable friends the New Democrats in 1989 tried to make the
same allegations, that we were destroying the Home Care Program, that it would
not exist. The same flurry of phone
calls came to my office. The same
concerns were expressed. Now, four years
later, the program has gone from $34 million to $68 million.
This
year, it will provide 11 percent more home care attendant services, 10 percent
more nursing services by R.N.s, 4 percent more Victorian Order of Nurses
services, but if Manitobans listen to the NDP, then they will be grievously
misled, Sir.
Criminal
Injuries
Compensation
Fund Deindexing
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): I know it will have
been a matter of great concern to all members of this House, and I would assume
particularly the Minister of Justice, that, unfortunately, we have received the
My
question is for the minister. Given this
increase, which is relatively dramatic in one year for crimes against the
person increasing in our city, why, given that and the large number of victims
who are being created as a result of these very serious crimes, is the minister
proposing in Bill 46, currently before this House, to deindex what amounts
might be payable to the victims of crime under the Criminal Injuries
Compensation Board?
Why
is he choosing this time, when we have more victims of crime, to deindex and
cut the benefits to the victims of crime?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I
looked with interest and concern today at some statistics relating to a surge
in various crimes in the city of
The
honourable member should remember that, too, and maybe be reminded about the
position that he took on Bill 3 when we tried so hard in this Legislature, over
his various objections, to try to get that legislation through, and we are
pleased that we have Bill 3.
On
the other hand, the honourable member makes a good point about other
crimes. I think that the increase in the
incidence of domestic violence should be no surprise, because ever since the
late Gerrie Hammond began the Abuse is a Crime campaign, we have deliberately
made it known to women and vulnerable people in society that help is
available. By doing that, we have found
that people are far more prepared to seek that help than they have in the
past. That is reflected in these
statistics, Mr. Speaker, as well.
Youth
crime is a matter of some concern to us.
We and the
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, the minister talked a lot but did
not answer the question.
Mr.
Speaker, two‑year increase in sex offences totals 18 percent, two‑year
increase in assaults constitutes 43 percent increase, two‑year increase
in robbery is 34 percent‑‑we are experiencing dramatic increases in
crimes against the person. The people who are injured in those crimes and are
unable to work go to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation.
This minister, this year, has chosen to deindex those benefits to those victims
of crime.
Mr.
Speaker, my question is, why?
Mr. McCrae: We chose this year to keep that program, which
is saying something when you consider that the program began because‑‑(interjection)
I am sorry I did not hear you.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable Leader of the second opposition party has already put his
question, and I believe the honourable member is waiting for the answer.
The
honourable Minister of Justice will deal with the matter that has been raised.
* (1355)
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to give the
honourable member an answer. He is
nattering from his seat and I could not make myself heard.
That
program started, Mr. Speaker, because of significant contribution to it by the
federal government, and the government has been withdrawing from that. This creates very significant problems for
all the provincial jurisdictions, and certainly ours.
This
was a way that we thought we could keep the program for those victims who need
this kind of program and we can be of some help to, but unfortunately, because
of the availability of funds, this decision had to be made.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am quite shocked to learn that
the government was even contemplating eradicating the program, and that it is
supposed to be some wonderful benefit that it is saved, albeit at a lesser
amount.
Mr.
Speaker, my further question for the minister:
Why, given this dramatic increase in the crimes against the person, is
he also, by Bill 53, The Justice for Victims of Crime Amendment Act, proposing
to delete that section of the act which allowed for payments to be made,
payments from the Consolidated Fund, while at the same time he did not delete
the section which allowed payments out of the Criminal Injuries Compensation
Fund to be paid to the government.
Who
is going to continue to pay for the Criminal Injuries Compensation Fund? Why has he deleted the section which allowed
for payments? I believe over $2 million
was paid last year from the Consolidated Fund.
Is that money now going to be cut off?
Mr. McCrae: I am having a little trouble understanding the
honourable member's question, Mr. Speaker.
It is true that the victims' programs that are run by the government of
An Honourable Member: That is why you are . . . less and less and
less.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
Home Care
Program
Housekeeping
Services
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Mr.
Speaker, on June 30, I very specifically asked the minister the question, could
he tell us whether patients or individuals with arthritis or dementia will only
get support services if they need a medical service? He answered, no.
Today,
I have been informed of a constituent who has chronic arthritis, severe
arthritis, who had been getting home care on a daily basis and has just been
informed that she will receive no home care as of September 1. She has also been told that she does not meet
the new criteria.
I
would like to ask the Minister of Health if he can tell us how he can justify
this hurtful cutback, and will he tell us specifically, what are the criteria
that staff are using in the field to determine eligibility?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would
be delighted to answer my honourable friend's question in full detail if my
honourable friend would do me the courtesy of providing me with the individual's
name in which we can make a full investigation and determine whether my
honourable friend's circumstances, as placed in Question Period, are accurate,
the circumstances behind that circumstance as stated by the member in the
House, and I will provide my honourable friend with an answer.
But
without specifics attached to know what the individual, whomever this
individual is, was receiving from Home Care and what kind of communications, et
cetera, I cannot answer the question, Sir.
Now,
if my honourable friend can provide me with the name, I would be pleased to
check this out for my honourable friend, as I have consistently indicated every
time New Democrats bring up these individual circumstances. But, Sir, in the last five years, I have only
had two or three referrals of individuals for follow‑up. The rest of them have never been referred to
me by name. I hope this one is.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we are getting dozens of calls
and will be happy to get that information to the minister as fast as we can
keep up with it and compile it. Let me
ask‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member for
* (1400)
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Let me ask the minister then about the
criteria that some staff are using in the field, which is that home maintenance
and laundry will no longer be provided as part of the continuing care service
except for those individuals who are cognitively impaired and do not have
someone to direct their services.
Would
the minister please clarify what criteria are being used in the field, and
would he table the criteria for all members in the House today?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, those are
exactly the criteria that I discussed during the Estimates of Home Care on
Monday, June 21, in the afternoon and again in the evening.
Mr.
Speaker, I hope my honourable friend can provide me with this individual's name
so I can follow up.
In
1989 when the New Democrats attempted to make this issue a major issue at the
time, I received five individuals' names from the Leader of the Opposition, the
member for Concordia (Mr. Doer). When we
contacted those people, they were unaware that they had made a complaint to the
Home Care Program and were offended at being called, because the complaint, Sir,
came in from one of the freebie mailers at taxpayers' expense that the member
for Concordia sent out. If you had
concerns about home care, you could tick it off. When those names came to us, some of them
were not even on the Home Care Program.
Now,
Mr. Speaker, that is the integrity that I experienced four years ago. Every time I have asked my honourable friends
to give me a name of this disaffected individual, it has only been on about
three occasions that I have actually received an individual's name. I hope today is not one of those times where
I do not receive an individual's name.
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that
we will be providing all the details of this individual and all the others that
we are receiving.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for
Alternative
Services
Ms. Judy Wasylycia‑Leis
(
Could
the Minister of Health tell us how many of these almost 5,000 individuals will
be cut off of Home Care and what services they can turn to to remain
independent in their homes and in their communities?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my
honourable friend the member for
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order.
The
minister is somehow suggesting that our rules which apply to letters should apply
to the message slips, the pink slips that we record messages on. The minister should know that there is . . .
undertaken to provide that information.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the only pink slip we would like to see is from
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to this minister.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member clearly does not have a
point of order. That is a dispute over
the facts.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, to finish
with your response.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I never want to question the
political motivation of the member for St. Johns, who is a candidate in the
federal election, but by refusing to send over those names today and having
their House leader stand up and defend her, to not do it when she has used them
and flourished them in front of the House, I have to question my honourable
friend's motivation. Does she care for the people like I do and I am willing to
investigate, or is this a political issue?
Now,
if it is care for the individual, please provide me with the names right now,
and I will start the investigation before the end of Question Period. If it is otherwise, good luck in the election
campaign.
Point of
Order
Ms. Wasylycia-Leis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I only have
one copy of this information. As fast as
I can write out this information on a piece of paper, the minister will have
it.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member knows she does not have a
point of order.
Student
Social Allowances Program
Funding
Elimination Justification
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Family
Services eliminated student social allowances, he argued that students had
three choices‑‑they could return home, they could find part‑time
work and go to school the other time, or they could alternate full‑time
work with a year of full‑time study.
Today,
in the committee hearing on Bill 32, we heard from a youth employment worker, a
woman of 13 years experience, who had worked with student social allowance
students and said that in her view, fewer than 5 percent could return home and
that with a Grade 10 education, fewer than 2 percent could have access to a
full‑time or part‑time job.
My
question to the minister is: Does he
have any other evidence that would convince this House that over a thousand
students will not end up on welfare as a result of his policy?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, the member is correct. We are
in committee as of today to talk about this particular piece of legislation. It was interesting to note that a lot of
information came forward. I was
particularly pleased to see a young member present at the committee who
recognized the tremendous debt and deficit problems this province has and the
recognition that in these very difficult times, as the Leader of the New
Democratic Party (Mr. Doer) has said on many occasions, difficult decisions
have to be made.
One
of the advantages of the committee system, of course, is to be able to present
information to the public. There were
members of the public who assumed this was a program that referred to 16‑
and 17‑year‑olds. It is not
surprising, given the comments made by members opposite, that there is that
information out there. I am pleased to
be able to tell the public of
We
were also able to talk to people from the Winnipeg Education Centre, where out
of 2,100 students, somewhere around 400 were on student social allowance and
recognition that there are 1,600 or 1,700 who work part time, who have other
resources, who, for whatever reason, are able to make their way to the
Education Centre and acquire an education.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, would the minister be prepared to
table a one‑year budget for a student or family on minimum wage, which is
what is available when you have a Grade 10 education, which would show how that
student could live in year one and create the savings, essentially generate the
surplus to go to school in year two, as the minister is suggesting?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware that the
individual circumstances of students‑‑and we have thousands and
thousands attending university, community colleges, who work part time, who
take school part time and do it successfully.
We
are aware that some of the individuals who are on provincial social assistance
when they are single parents are able to go to school at the same time because
of the Single Parent Job Access Program.
We are aware of disabled Manitobans who are on provincial social
assistance who are also furthering their education.
Those
people who are accessing the student program that we have been discussing, many
of them have the ability to work. All of
them have the ability to work, because that is why they are on the municipal
social assistance from time to time.
We
saw evidence today, both in written form and by presentation, of Manitobans who
combine both work and going to school.
Ms. Friesen: As the minister knows, students who go to
college and university have access to student loans.
My
question was very simple. The minister
said, go to school, and then go to work‑‑sandwich those two
things. I want him to table a budget
which will show us how that can be done. It is a simple question. He has the staff; let him do it.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Part of the information we were able to discuss
with the public this morning and make people aware of the many programs that
exist. I would reference the Workforce
2000 program that committee members spoke about this morning, where hundreds
and hundreds of Manitobans were able to get their training and job skills
through the Workforce 2000 program.
The
member also was on record this morning as saying that she would favour having
the program phased out rather than completely chopped. I see some recognition from the member that
she realizes the difficult economic times that we are in.
* (1410)
Point of
Order
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, my question
was to a question of would he favour whether the program should be phased out
or not. I was not on record as saying
that. I think the minister perhaps was
not listening as carefully as he might‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister, to finish with his
response.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am certainly prepared to check the record,
but I believe I clearly heard the member say that she favoured phasing the
program out.
Again,
we have heard from a number of Manitobans this morning and we will hear from
some more tonight, and it is a good chance for us to bring further information
to people who are looking for assistance for education.
Emergency
Home Repair Program
Funding
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
The
other night I has asked him a question with respect to the Emergency Home
Repair Program, asked about the cutback from 500,000 to 400,000. The Minister of Housing indicated to me that
in fact any demand, and I would like to quote what it is that he said in
committee: "The fact of the matter
is we have an Emergency Home Repair Program.
If somebody is in need and they qualify, they get the money, they get it
fixed, end of story."
This
morning, I find out that in the previous fiscal year we found that through this
very same program they had to halt it because three‑quarters of the way
through the year, they ran out of money.
Is
the Minister of Housing in fact doing what he said on Monday evening, or is it
in fact the cutback as I was suggesting to the Minister of Housing on Monday
night?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that
there are emergency situations where people are in dire straits, meet the
qualifications of the program, have circumstances where they are going to be
endangered if repairs are not completed.
That is what an Emergency Home Repair Program is for.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, can the minister then tell me, or
tell the House, why it is, or how it is possible then for them to stop
processing applicants because they have run out of money. How can you say that
the money is there, when in fact three‑quarters of the way through the
year it disappears? The money has been
spent.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, if the member has a circumstance
where someone was denied service because of that, let him bring it forward and
I will investigate.
Mr. Lamoureux: Well, Mr. Speaker, then we will make it very
clear for all residents of
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, if he has
evidence that someone was denied service, let him bring the names forward and I
will investigate. I am not aware of
anybody who was denied service.
The Pas
Health Complex
Kidney
Dialysis Services
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I want to read a government news
release that was issued on July 6. This
is talking about the dialysis program.
The treatment schedule may be expanded‑‑and this is in
Portage‑‑and will also provide employment for five part‑time
registered nurses, and additional funds may be available. Residents of
Mr.
Speaker, I also want to table a letter from the Anglican Deanery Council of The
Pas that was written to the Minister of Health.
In this letter, they are saying that one of their retired clergy people,
Reverend Canon Gordon McGillivary, has had to be driven to Flin Flon every two
days for dialysis. This is a stressful
trip for one and a half hours each way and with the stress of treatment in
between.
There
is a well‑equipped dialysis unit in The Pas Health Complex and trained
staff to operate it. The machines are
not booked up for the whole time, and apparently there is a limitation on the
staff hours currently allowed by the province for this unit. Mr. Speaker, I want to table that letter.
My
question is to the Minister of Health.
Because of what I have just said and because of the reform program of
the government, recently 20 nurses have been laid off in The Pas, and The Pas
Health Complex is only allowed to do a limited number of dialysis treatments
each week in spite of the actual caseload.
My
question to the minister is, given what I have just said, why is the minister
forcing people to drive to Flin Flon to get treatment and yet giving
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I did
not think anybody in the New Democratic Party would ask a question about the
expansion of dialysis that was‑‑I was ably assisted in the ribbon‑cutting
by the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) on Tuesday of this
week. It was a very good announcement
for the people of
Mr.
Speaker, it is part of the continuing expansion of the dialysis program that we
have undertaken since we have come into government. That has included a number of new facilities
like
Now
I hope from the tenor of my honourable friend's question that he is not saying
the people of Portage la Prairie did not deserve to have dialysis in Portage la
Prairie, as The Pas has and as Flin Flon has.
I hope he is not saying that, Sir.
Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as saying
that the North deserves the same treatment as the south is getting. That is all
I ask.
Mr.
Speaker, my second question is, how can this minister consider it to be cost‑efficient
to be shipping people two hours away to get treatment, instead of in The Pas
where facilities are available?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I really regret my honourable
friend is saying we do not care for northern
It
was this government that put dialysis service in the city of
Mr.
Speaker, I do not know the specific circumstances of this individual's
dialysis, but from time to time, even though we have expanded the program
closer to where people live, the capacity of the program is reached at that
given facility and individuals are referred to the next closest facility. That is an inconvenience I will acknowledge
to those individuals for the short period of time that they are asked to go to
another facility, but it is significantly better than what it was when we came
into government, where some of those individuals had to come to
Mr. Lathlin: I want to simply ask the Minister of Health
one last time why will his government not provide services for those patients
in The Pas as well as the surrounding aboriginal community in The Pas area?
My
question is why will he not provide those services?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend's question
is based on an inaccurate preamble. We
are providing those services in The Pas, in Flin Flon, in Thompson. We are providing them in northern
Mr.
Speaker, I cannot indicate to my honourable friend the nature of his question
when we have expanded the service in northern
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), I will recognize the honourable member for St. Boniface
with committee changes and then the honourable member for Gimli.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments be amended as follows: St. James (Mr. Edwards) for Crescentwood
(Ms. Gray).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker: Prior to getting to the honourable member for
Gimli, I will do the honourable member for Point Douglas with his committee
changes.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli); Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), for
Thursday, July 8, 1993, at 7 p.m.
I
move, seconded by the member for
Motions agreed to.
* (1420)
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENT
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Gimli have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? (agreed)
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to an
event that took place in the community of Gimli last weekend. For four days, Gimli was the host of North
American Boardsailing Championships. By
all accounts, the town and its residents came through with flying colours in
hosting this event.
Mr.
Speaker, Gimli is considered to be one of the top sailing locations in the
world. Besides we are situated along the
largest fresh‑water body of water in the world, Gimli is one of the
finest locations for competitive sailing because of its facilities and the hard
work of local sailors and other residents.
Gimli
residents, in the true community spirit, made sure competitors, coaches, fans
and media were all taken care of during the most recent championships. Pancake breakfasts and a banquet were only
some of the activities organized by the community for this past weekend's
events. In short, a world‑class
sailing event received world‑class treatment.
I
believe all members of this House would agree that everyone in Gimli should be
proud of the job they did to promote this province and their town and to ensure
the sailing community keeps coming back.
Gimli's commitment to being a world‑class host is perhaps a major
reason why it is awarded the World Boardsailing Championships for August 1994,
a major achievement in the sailing world.
Mr.
Speaker, I ask all members of this Assembly to join in congratulating the
community of Gimli and its residents for successfully hosting the recent North
American Boardsailing Championships.
Thank you.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments‑‑this is as of July 7 at the 7 p.m. sitting‑‑be
amended as follows: The member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr.
Praznik).
I
move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition
of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: The member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine)
for the member for
I
move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the
composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources
be amended as follows: The member for Steinbach (Mr. Driedger) for the member
for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings); the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme) for the member
for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh).
Motions agreed to.
MATTER OF
URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), that under Rule 27, the ordinary
business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public
importance; namely, the changes made to the structure of the Home Care Program
which will have a severe impact on seniors and the disabled.
Mr.
Speaker, I move that under Rule 27(1) that the ordinary business of the House
be set aside to discuss a matter of public importance; namely, changes to the
structure of home care which will impact on services to seniors.
Mr. Speaker: Before determining whether the motion meets
requirements of our Rule 27, the honourable member for Kildonan will have five
minutes to state his case for the urgency of debating this matter today, and a
spokesperson for the government and the other opposition party will also have
five minutes to address the position of their party respecting the urgency of
debating this matter today.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, no single issue is more important
or more urgent to discuss than the health and welfare of our seniors and the
disabled in our society. By this
decision that has been made by this government, that welfare, that health can
be placed into jeopardy by the actions of this government.
The
government's program which cut $3 million from the home maintenance program
that cut the laundry services, the home maintenance and the meal preparation,
Mr. Speaker, puts people in the community in jeopardy. It puts their independence in the community
in jeopardy. It puts their welfare in
jeopardy, and it puts them in jeopardy of being placed in institutions,
something that should, according to the government's own reform package, be
only utilized as a measure of last resort.
But by this decision, we have thousands of people, at least 5,000
people, who possibly will be placed in this position.
This
decision, as indicated in the letter tabled this morning, has now been taken by
the government. These people are now
being contacted. As we speak, these
people are being contacted.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Urgency.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the member for Morris (Mr.
Manness) says "urgency." I
will quickly quote from a letter given to me, sent to the minister by an R.N. And I am quoting from a letter to the
minister from Barbara Thompson, R.N., who works in the Home Care Program: What happens if a cognitively impaired senior
eats spoiled or rotten food that is left sitting in the refrigerator or
home? Severe food poisoning will result
in an acute illness. What of frail
elderly with respiratory and cardiac conditions who experience severe shortness
of breath upon even minimal exertion?
Mr.
Speaker, the health of individuals is an urgent matter. The status of their
health, their possibility of being placed in institutions is of concern. The fact that this program is being cut off
as we speak, that they are getting letters and phone calls as we speak from
Home Care workers saying that they are going to be cut off, places their health
in jeopardy.
That
is what is urgent and pressing. We are
getting hundreds of calls from seniors asking us. The government has not even outlined what the
criteria of the program is.
As
we speak, the government is considering signing a contract which will see
hundreds of thousands of dollars go to Connie Curran to deal with the home care
area, and this money could be better used today on these very people who are
being cut off their home care service.
As
we speak, the government has an opportunity not to sign this contract on the
Connie Curran gravy train. As we speak,
these people are phoning us.
The
disabled community had a meeting, as I understand, with departmental officials
yesterday, and they were unable to provide them with information as to whether
or not disabled people will be able to remain as independent individuals in the
community or whether they will have to now go back into institutions, something
that affects every single one of those disabled individuals out there in the
community.
It
is a matter of urgency that this matter be resolved. It is a matter of urgency that we resolve who
is being affected, how are they being affected, and more importantly, it is a
matter of urgency that the minister understands what the effect this policy will
have on these Manitobans, on these 5,000 Manitobans, to allow him to put this
on hold. To consult, Mr. Speaker, put
this program on hold and not place these people's lives in jeopardy, their
independence in jeopardy, by virtue of this decision to cut off these services
to the program.
We
have no other opportunity. The Estimates
are over. We raised it in the Estimates,
the minister was evasive, did not give us proper or adequate information as
usual.
We
have no other opportunity to discuss this in the context, we have no other
opportunity to discuss this in the Legislature. We have passed our
Estimates. The policy is being decided
now. We have had consultations from the heads of the two geriatric facilities,
Health Sciences Centre, St. Boniface centre saying this is a wrong decision. We have not had an opportunity to talk to the
minister, Mr. Speaker.
* (1430)
It
is of urgent importance that the minister hears these representations, that he
hears what the impact will be on these people, that he hears from these
institutions, that some people may not be released from these institutions
because the caregivers and the doctors do not know whether those community
supports will be available in the community.
There
are people right now in hospitals who may not be able to be released into the
community because they do not know whether those home support services are
available. That is happening today, Mr.
Speaker. That is why this matter is of
urgency, and that is why based on that, we are asking that the ordinary
business of the House be set aside to deal with this urgent and pressing
matter.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I stand today representing the caucus, indicating that we do support
the emergency debate that is being put forward from the New Democratic
Party. We do believe that, in fact, it
is an urgent matter that has merit to be debated today, that the public
interest would be served best by this House designating the rest of the day as
an opportunity, in particular for the Minister of Health and other members of
cabinet, to help clarify the whole matter.
To
the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), we have to realize, whether the government
wants to admit it or not, there are a significant number of individuals,
whether they are seniors, whether they are disabled, who are out there who are
confused, who are not too sure what this government is doing. I, myself, have had one phone call from
someone in my constituency expressing concerns about Home Care services that
were being delivered. So I think it is
very important.
If
we take it in the broader picture, Mr. Speaker, in terms of health care reform,
this is what is in the public interest. This government is on record as trying
to implement health care reform that would be to the betterment of all
Manitobans. The government has said
itself that what you want to do is have more delivery in the communities. From what has been said and put on the record
and the nonanswers the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has been putting
forward, I believe that it is in contradiction with what the government's
stated policy of health care reform is.
That
is the reason why it is, in fact, in the interest of the public that we debate
this particular issue. We have on the
one hand the government talking about health care reform, talking about putting
it into the communities, talking about having seniors and people with
disabilities living in their homes. On
the other hand, Mr. Speaker, we do not see the government acting on those
points. This is the reason why it is in
the public's best interest.
It
is, in fact, urgent in the sense that you have individuals today who are out
there who are not sure what this government is doing. If you tune in to Question Period, whether it
is opposition members or government, they are completely at odds in terms of
what is being said, and I think an emergency debate would allow for the
Minister of Health and other cabinet members, along with opposition members, to
put their arguments forward and then let the public judge it at that time. So I strongly urge that it is allowed to be
debated today based on those arguments.
Thank
you very much.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, both
opposition spokesmen on this request for an emergency debate were required to
establish urgency and the fact there was no other opportunity to debate this
issue.
They
have failed in both instances. The
urgency has not been established by either member, and the opportunity to
debate is frequent, Sir, not the least of which is Question Period, not the
least of which is unlimited debate on the concurrence motion, which will happen
as soon as probably Tuesday next week.
There is unlimited debate time on a number of financial bills at which
all of these issues can be brought forward.
My
honourable friends have not established either case. The urgency issue, Sir, I submit is not
accurate because the implementation of the domestic service review is effective
September 3, some two months from now, not immediate, as my honourable friends
would seem to believe.
They
are receiving phone calls from concerned seniors who have believed some of the
presentation of the issue, possibly from opposition members, possibly from the
media, with the impression that the Home Care Program, in other words, the
nursing and personal care service program is being cut. That is not right, Sir.
Mr.
Speaker, the reason it is not right is explained‑‑and I refer my
honourable friend the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), because he asked me in
Estimates on June 21‑‑to his question on page 4499 and the
comprehensive answer that I gave to him, which he asked again today, with the
figures starting on the last column of page 4499 and carrying on to page 4500.
Mr.
Speaker, this issue is not a new issue.
There is no urgency. This was
explained in the budget of April 6.
There was a Free Press article by Alex Paul on April 7 explaining this
change. A number of questions were posed
in the House by both opposition parties to which a full explanation was given
in Question Period. We spent more than
two days debating this issue in the Estimates of the Department of Health.
I
offered to my honourable friends the New Democrats and the Liberals that we
could carry on debating the Estimates of the Ministry of Health on Home Care,
on the APM contract with Connie Curran, on the personal care home changes, on
any of the issues they so desired for any amount of time they wanted to carry
on with. Instead, my honourable friends
the Liberals and the New Democrats curtailed debate at 4:50 Monday afternoon
last, 10 minutes before five o'clock, without a single question on the APM
contract, without a single question on Continuing Care, without a single
question on the personal care home per diem increase.
Mr.
Speaker, they had every single opportunity to ask all of these questions again
and receive the same answers as were part of the Estimates on pages 4499 to
4500, but my honourable friends do not want the answers. My honourable friends want to persist in
spreading a fear campaign among seniors just as the New Democrats and the
Liberals did four years ago on the same issue following the same policy that
New Democrats put in place in 1985.
Mr.
Speaker, the policy is this and this simply, that where there are alternate
services of housecleaning and laundry provision, the senior who has the ability
to manage those services on their own will purchase them from other than the
Home Care Program. That is a policy of
the New Democrats under Howard Pawley in 1985, continued under this government
including this budget.
Mr.
Speaker, there is no change in policy.
There is no cutback of $3 million.
There is an increase in the budget with 11 percent more home care
assistance being purchased this year over last year, 9.5 percent more
registered nursing hours being supplied this year over last year, with almost 4
percent more Victorian Order of Nurses services provided this year over last,
all on the medical nursing sides and the personal care needs sides providing
more services, not less.
There
will, Sir, be a decrease in the domestic services of housecleaning and laundry
provision, but that is consistent with the 1985 policy of Howard Pawley and the
NDP, no change, progressive and able to maintain independent living of seniors
without fear and without concern in their homes independently, because this
government has doubled the funding on the Home Care Program from $34 million in
1988 to over $68 million today, a doubling of money, Sir, not a cutback; an
increase in the amount of service, not a reduction; more personal services,
more‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
* (1440)
Speaker's
Ruling
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like to thank all honourable members
for the advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for
Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) should be debated today.
The
notice required under our subrule 27(1) was received, and, according to our
Rule 27 and Beauchesne Citations 389 and 390, the two conditions required for a
matter of urgent importance to proceed are (a) the subject matter must be so
pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be
brought on early enough; and (b) it must be shown "that the public
interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention."
I
would remind members that "'urgency' . . . does not apply to the matter
itself, but means 'urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided
by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early
enough and the public interest demands that discussion take place
immediately."
I
am ruling that there are other opportunities to debate this matter. The member for Kildonan has not used his
right to raise a grievance; also, we are nearing the end of the consideration
of Estimates, so the issue raised by the honourable member could be debated on
the concurrence motion as well as a second and a third reading debate of The
Appropriation Act. Further, I have not
been convinced that the matter is so urgent that all the business of the House
be set aside today to debate this matter.
Therefore,
I am ruling against the matter of urgent public importance.
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I challenge
the ruling of the Chair.
Mr. Speaker: The ruling of the Chair having been
challenged, all those in favour of sustaining the Chair, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members:
Nay.
Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the Yeas have it.
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Yeas and Nays, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: A recorded vote having been requested, call
in the members.
The
question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained.
A
STANDING VOTE was taken, the
result being as follows:
Yeas
Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme,
Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, Manness, McAlpine, McCrae,
McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Praznik, Reimer, Render, Rose,
Stefanson, Sveinson, Vodrey.
Nays
Alcock, Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Edwards,
Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Gray, Hickes,
Lamoureux, Lathlin, Maloway, Martindale, Reid,
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Yeas 25, Nays 22.
Mr. Speaker: The motion is accordingly carried.
House
Business
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would
seek unanimous consent to withdraw Bill 34, The Public Schools Amendment
(Francophone Schools Governance) Act, from the Standing Committee on Economic
Development and transfer it to the Standing Committee on Law Amendments.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader
have leave to withdraw Bill 34 from the Economic Development committee and move
it to
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would announce that the
Standing Committee on Law Amendments will sit Tuesday morning next at 9 a.m. to
consider Bills 25 and 34, in that order.
Mr.
Speaker, I would also ask whether or not there is a willingness of the House to
accept the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources to sit
tonight at 5 p.m. rather than 7 p.m., as was called, to consider Bills 2, 10
and 17. Would there be unanimous consent
to do that?
Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to
allow PUNR to sit at 5 p.m. instead of at 7 p.m.?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No?
Leave is denied.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, then I would indicate that Law
Amendments will sit tonight at 7 p.m. to consider Bill 32 and 1 p.m. tomorrow,
if necessary.
Those
are the announcements for House business at this time.
Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the House whether or not there is a willingness‑‑and
this is unusual I understand‑‑to go into Estimates and once the
Department of Energy and Mines has had its Estimates completed in the Chamber,
whether or not the section outside in the committee room can continue to hear
Estimates review on the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism throughout
the afternoon. And currently then, the
House will attend to consider bills this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave?
Some Honourable Members:
No.
Mr. Speaker: There is not leave to allow the House to sit
at the same time as we have a committee running? No, leave is denied.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, then I
move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr.
Speaker, before you put the question, is there willingness to waive private
members' hour?
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private
members' hour?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes, there is leave? Are you suggesting no?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Speaker: No leave?
Okay, there is no leave on that one.
Therefore
the original question before the House is:
It has been moved by the honourable government House leader (Mr.
Manness), seconded by the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr.
Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to
consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion
agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the
Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Employee Benefits and Other
Payments, the Department of Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General
Salary Increases, and the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism; and the
honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the
Department of Energy and Mines.
* (1530)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
Chairperson's
Ruling
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. When the committee last sat, we had been
dealing with the Department of I, T and T.
I took under advisement a point of order from the honourable member for
On
July 5, 1993, in the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255,
during consideration of the Estimates of Industry, Trade and Tourism, the
honourable member for
In
allowing the committee to proceed by unanimous consent to waive Rule 65(9)(d),
I did cite Rule 64(1) which states that the rules of the House shall be
observed insofar as they are applicable to the Committee of the Whole House
except for the rules for seconding motions and limiting the number of times of
speaking. The matter of waiving the
rules of the House by unanimous consent, however, is not applicable in any
committee as only the House can waive or vary the rules it has made.
Therefore,
my application of Rule 64(1) to the matter of waiving House rules by a
committee was not correct.
The
end result is the committee did proceed contrary to the House rules and that
cannot be changed now. What is important
is that it is understood, as stated in Beauchesne Citation 19, that these
events do not constitute a precedent.
I
would like to remind the committee members that the procedure to waive the
rules of the House is to have the committee temporarily suspend its proceedings
so that the Speaker may resume the Chair and a desired unanimous consent be
requested from the House.
I
apologize to the committee for my errors.
EMPLOYEE
BENEFITS AND OTHER PAYMENTS
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): When the
committee last sat, it had concluded with the Estimates of the Civil Service
Commission and started with the Estimates of Industry, Trade and Tourism. However there are two line items that come
before the Department of I, T and T which are Employee Benefits and Other
Payments on page 44 and Internal Reform on page 147.
The
honourable minister, do you have an opening statement?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour: No.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am just getting my staff
to bring up my briefing material, my briefing notes.
I
should say to Mr. Deputy Chair that he should not have to apologize too hard to
the committee. It was a unanimous
support at the time of the meeting.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister give
us an indication in terms of the effect of Bill 22 on the workforce, the civil
service?
Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chair, I certainly can. I think what it has done is it has allowed
some 500‑plus individuals who are employed by the Province of Manitoba to
be working today; whereas if we had not brought in Bill 22, they were likely to
have been laid off. We are not talking
about positions. We are talking about
individuals would have been laid off and not working, although they probably
would have been on severance packages at the current time.
But
we would have taken 500 people who have served the
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: At this time the committee will recess for two
minutes.
* * *
The committee recessed at 3:39 p.m.
After
Recess
The committee resumed at 3:41 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Committee will come to order.
1.
Employee Benefits and Other Payments (a) Civil Service Superannuation Plan
$29,510,000‑‑pass.
(b)
(c)
Civil Service Group Life Insurance $1,889,800‑‑pass.
(d)
Workers' Compensation Board (1) Assessments re: Accidents to Government
Employees $3,341,000‑‑pass; (2) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($3,119,000)‑‑pass.
(e)
Unemployment Insurance Plan $21,823,100‑‑pass.
(f)
Dental Plan $4,852,800‑‑pass.
(g)
Long Term Disability Plan $1,589,100‑‑pass.
(h)
Ambulance and Hospital Semi‑Private Plan $330,900‑‑pass.
(j)
Levy for Health and Post‑Secondary Education $13,999,200‑‑pass.
Resolution
6.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $86,034,900 for Employees Benefits and Other
Payments for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
INTERNAL
REFORM, WORKFORCE ADJUSTMENT AND GENERAL SALARY INCREASES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Now we will revert to Internal Reform on page
147.
1.
Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and General Salary Increases (a) Internal
Reform and Workforce Adjustment $10,000,000‑‑pass; (b) General
Salary Increases $10,000,000‑‑pass.
Resolution
25.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $20,000,000 for Internal Reform, Workforce
Adjustment and General Salary Increases for the fiscal year ending the 31st day
of March, 1994.
INDUSTRY,
TRADE AND TOURISM
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): At this time we will move to the Department
of Industry, Trade and Tourism. We will
call up the minister.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be
interested, stepping back from the details of what is happening in the department
right now. This is the lead department
on industrial development, the lead department on economic development, and can
the minister tell us in a specific sense, what is achieved? What are the results? What is the output of a year's work in this department? What has happened in
All
I see reference to in the minister's opening statements are things that have
been done by other departments in eliminating public service positions and
holding down taxes. What has happened in this department? What new industries are here? What new jobs have been created? How many people are working here that were
not working here a year ago as a direct result of the actions of this minister
and this department?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, firstly, I think
it is important to keep in context my opening remarks, that while we have a
responsibility in terms of job creation and the economy and have particular
programs to deal with that, clearly we are one government. We are not individual departments, and what
we do collectively is important for the economy of
When
we get to my department, there are a series of particular initiatives. There are particular financial programs that
have led to direct job creation as the manufacturing industrial opportunity
program that approved‑‑I believe I referred to them in my opening
remarks‑‑for financial assistance grants, or repayable loans
actually, during 1992‑93 that resulted in several hundred jobs.
There
were two programs approved under the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment
Initiatives that again resulted in hundreds of jobs. Various other programs, the Manufacturing
Adaptation Program, which is a loan program of a smaller scale, up to $100,000
repayable loan program, that again deals with existing businesses in many cases
and results in either a combination of job maintenance and/or job addition.
I
think it is important to recognize as well that job maintenance in many cases
in today's economy is just as important as job enhancement or attraction. I would encourage the honourable member,
without me repeating all of them, to read some of my comments relative to what
has been happening not only in Canada but in the United States, and not only in
North America but in other parts of the world, the kind of job losses that the
European community is going through, the kind of job losses that are happening
in the United States and the kind of restructuring that is taking place
universally.
I
think most who are looking at the global economic picture are recognizing that
companies are in fact going through a major restructuring. There is a shift in the traditional economic
base. There is a shift to more knowledge‑based
industries and so on. So many of the
programs that we have have also been very significant in job retention, and
many of the things we do on a day‑to‑day basis deal with that as
well. I have many discussions with
financial institutions dealing with existing businesses to make sure that they
are supportive getting them through some difficult periods.
We
have a tourism program that provides both a combination of financial support
for marketing programs that can deal with additional economic activity and a
product development aspect that deals with the improvement of facilities which
again enhances their economic activity.
We have a communications agreement that will be dealing in 1993‑94
with some initiatives that I know the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has some
interest in that will deal with the combination of job creation and research
and development that will lead to further job creation in this province.
So,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I could go on and on going through each of the detailed
lines that point to various expenditures of money that have led to direct job
maintenance and creation and/or‑‑I have not even begun to touch on
the whole policy side of trade and the kinds of role that we are playing in
trade. I think the member for Osborne
knows the leadership role we are playing on the whole issue of interprovincial
trade barriers, the breaking down of internal trade barriers in
We
have had many discussions in the House on NAFTA and he knows full well the
position we have taken on NAFTA and the concerns we have as it relates to the
three outstanding conditions that still exist.
We
also deal with GATT and continue to support our federal government with the
position we are taking on market‑access enhancement, particularly in the
agricultural community with the European community at this particular point in
time.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I could go on and on, but I think at this point I will stop
and see if the honourable member has another question.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, I find the whole
discussion a fascinating one. There is
an article, actually I think it is in this month's, might have been last
month's,
There
are some interesting things that I observed, and I just would like to try to
understand a little better maybe from the perspective of this minister who
stated, in the response he just completed, that his division and he do have a
responsibility for job creation in this province.
When
you look at what has happened in‑‑let us take the last five years
as a period, although we could go back 10 if you wanted, but take the last five
years and look at the distribution of wealth in this country as measured by the
gross domestic product. When we look at
that, and it is true that the country has been through a recession, the world
has been through a recession, different parts of the country have suffered, we
see that relative to
* (1550)
I
am talking about relative position within the country now. The entire country
has gone into a recession.
I
do not say that to even hang that at the minister's doorstep. I would like to understand what is driving
that, what the problem is that the minister is facing as he attempts to fulfill
his responsibility for job creation?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, firstly, I think many
people today are questioning the value of the GDP as a measurement of economic
growth because, I think as we all know, it can be for a short period of time
artificially inflated or adjusted upwards through government spending, as an
example. Certainly many articles I have read of late are questioning the whole
issue of economic indicators, and as the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) knows,
GDP is one of about 13 or 14 economic indicators.
Without
accepting the preamble or the comments of the member, without having the
details in front of me, and again the opportunity to review the year‑by‑year
adjustments to the GDP, I cannot comment specifically on the changes from year
to year, but I will talk in principle about that issue and about what I see as
the positive economic signs in our province.
I have already outlined my concerns about that as an economic indicator
because of things like government spending, and that is why if you compare
If
you look at the projections for capital investment as an example in our
province, capital investment growth in the private sector, I believe our ranking
is somewhere around third in the country in terms of what is expected in
private sector capital investment. If
you look at capital investment in the manufacturing sector overall, we are
expected to have the second highest performance in all of
If
you look at other signs in our economy that show consumer confidence, if you
look at the swing in retail sales performance over the last six or seven months
in Manitoba, again, our performance in that area is running at, I believe, the
second best in all of Canada since September of 1992.
If
you look at issues like our unemployment in terms of how we are starting to
fare today, if you look at employment, firstly, in terms of full‑time
jobs, I believe in the first few months of this year we had some 10,000 more
full‑time jobs in Manitoba than we did a year ago, and that is the best
record in all of Canada, 2.5 percent increase.
So
from my perspective to sit here and focus only on the GDP is not doing justice
to the overall economy of
I
am not suggesting for a moment that there are areas where we still would not
want to see more improvement and that we do not have areas that require more
attention, but I keep reminding members of the opposition, I think to do
justice to these kinds of issues you have to do it in a relative sense and you
have to compare us to other provinces.
While the member for Osborne is focused on GDP, I can come back and
focus on unemployment rates, I can focus on full‑time employment, I can
focus on retail sales, I can focus on capital expenditures, private capital
expenditures, capital expenditures in manufacturing. I could focus on last year's manufacturing
shipments where we were the second or third best in
Even
using GDP, last year I believe we had the third highest growth rate in GDP in
all of
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know, it may
be that it is just not possible to have the kind of discussion that I want to
have today. I mean, I started off by
saying that I do not hold this minister responsible for this. I hoped that we could get unhooked from this,
you know, you did this or you did not do this, that kind of‑‑it
strikes me that we waste an enormous amount of time here having that kind of
who did what to whom conversation. I
make a series of observations looking at what are reputed to be reputable
sources of information on economic performance and the minister responds to me. Perhaps that is the only thing he is loaded
to respond with right now. Maybe by having somebody else get here, we will get
a little more detailed discussion.
It
is easy to pull things out of the existing mix of information that is suggested
in this area or that area that we are doing better. I do note the growth in full‑time jobs,
by the way. The minister is quite right,
there have been some encouraging signs in that area, although, again, if you
look at our mix of full‑time to part‑time jobs within our current
labour force, we have been sliding for the last five years. These are not figures that are manufactured
by anybody. I mean, they come straight
out of the very reports the government puts out month after month.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
The Acting Deputy Chairperson
(Mr. Reimer): Mr. Minister.
Mr. Alcock: No, I am not finished. You were talking to the minister, I did not
want to interfere with his opportunity to have a conservation with the speaker.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Mr. Alcock, to
continue his line of questioning.
Mr. Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson. I am not attempting to
attack the minister or the government. I
just would like to understand it better.
I go through it and it looks frightening to me. It is frightening to me that this province,
despite efforts by the previous government and by this government, continues to
lose position in
You
can argue the fine points of whether GDP represents anything, it does represent
the accumulation or distribution of wealth in the country between
provinces. When you look at distribution
of labour force, you see the same thing.
I should say, you know, there are further strengths in this case. I am not attacking just this minister or this
province; the same thing is replicated in
Mr. Stefanson: I do not have a problem having this kind of a
discussion. I am not sitting here
blaming anybody else for any situation in our economy today, as it relates to
our discussion about economic indicators and performance and so on. My point was, quite simply, that I think you
have to look at all the economic indicators.
We have had that discussion.
In
terms of what we are doing as a government, I will go back, and I think this
would be an interesting discussion to have with the member for Osborne, to see
whether or not he agrees or disagrees with what we have set as the economic
priorities. We did recently release a
framework for economic growth by the Premier of our province, worked on in
conjunction with the Economic Development Board, which I happen to serve on as
well along with other colleagues. From a
reporting point of view, it falls under the jurisdiction or mandate of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
* (1600)
But
I am sure that the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has had a chance to go
through that document, and it builds on a 10‑point framework. This is where we will probably have some
disagreements with some of the opposition parties, is what those priorities
should be.
Obviously,
we put a great deal of emphasis on the economic climate in terms of long‑term
job creation. I probably should preface
this by saying to the member for Osborne that I would hope we could agree that
to create real wealth in our province and to create long‑term jobs is not
something that any government can do overnight.
He
is right that the provinces are probably limited to how much they can even do,
that you as a country have to, hopefully, be on a similar track in many
respects to, again, create real wealth and long‑term jobs.
I
referred to them in my opening comments.
I will not go back to all 10 points, but I think some of them are
fundamental. There is not a day goes by in here that I do not have some
discussions with Manitobans and many of them are members of the business
community. The message I hear
consistently from them is the whole issue of competitiveness.
They
are not only competing with
The
message consistently to us is that many of them believe that years ago the
relative competitiveness of
We
are seeing independent signs of that. We
see companies not being commissioned by us‑‑you see a report by a
company like the Boyd Company out of the United States independently survey
some 45 cities in the United States and Canada and finds that Winnipeg was the
third lowest, and the lowest within Canada in terms of competitiveness.
We
see decisions like companies like Monsanto and others that point to the issue
of competitiveness. I will not belabour
that point, but obviously that is something that we fundamentally believe in.
Another
area is unquestionably the whole area of skills training and lifelong
learning. Again, I will use the Monsanto
decision. They did not only talk about
competitiveness, they talked about the quality of the workforce, and the
quality of the workforce in
I
think we have a good reputation for the workforce in
I
think Canadian businesses and
I
notice the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) is reacting, so rather than me
ramble, I will wait to see if he wants to come with a more specific question.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, you know, it
is just interesting to me. We covered a
lot of territory, maybe we can squeeze it down a little bit so we can be more
specific on a couple of points.
The
minister references the plan that was tabled not too long ago. I looked forward to that with some eagerness,
frankly. I mean I thought that maybe
what we would finally see is a plan, and I was frankly quite disappointed in
it, not that any particular component of it was wrong or that it stated
something that I disagreed with. It is
just that you are five years, six budgets into this, and what I saw was sort of
a competent overview of current thinking in economic development attached to, I
do not know, a platitude generator that just sort of ground out a bunch of nice
phrases about this. I did not see anything
that said, and as a result we will commit to this; we will do that; we have
this target; we are headed in this direction.
Particularly
what the minister caught me reacting to is this tremendous confusion I have as
I look at the statement that the minister just made about the importance of the
quality of the workforce. You know, that
is not something that has been discovered in
I
tried to reconcile that statement with the committee I sat in this morning when
we are kicking 1,200 kids out of school.
I mean, when I read the stuff on quality of workforce, and when I look
at the information that is coming, certainly out of the States,
So
on the one hand we have this department sitting here saying, you know, this is
a really important thing, and on the other hand we have another department
saying, but we are going to deny this opportunity to a whole bunch of
people. We are going to reduce the
support we are putting into education, and we are going to reduce the support
we are putting into universities. So
there is real dissidence in the system, if you like. I just do not understand what the real policy
of the government is, I guess.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess I
would obviously disagree and make the point that when it comes to the quality
of education in
We
are in the midst right now of a review of the Roblin commission reviewing our
universities. I think some of the kinds
of initiatives that we are seeing at our community colleges in terms of making
them more linked to the needs of our business communities is definitely a step
in the right direction. We have seen
that already with some course adjustments that I know in the aerospace
community which is an important community in
The
whole review of education done over the last period of years is all pointing,
from my perspective, in the right direction of enhancing the kinds of training
and abilities that our young people will ultimately obtain. Obviously, we agree with the objective, and
we agree with what we want to see as the end result. We might not agree on everything we are doing
to get there, but clearly I think the kinds of reviews we are seeing being done
by education are heading in the right direction.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Alcock: I shall not belabour that because this is not
the minister responsible for those decisions, but it just stands out there as
an enormous contradiction.
Let
us come back to this. I mean the
minister made much, and then certainly the Premier (Mr. Filmon) made much, of
the tabling of this plan. Now we have
put it on the table. We said this is
what we are going to do. What does it
mean in concrete terms?
You
know, you talk about virtually every major industry in the province as being
important. You run through all the
platitudes about education and such.
What does it mean in terms of policy decisions, the allocation of resources,
deregulation, whatever? I mean, given
the actions that a government can take, what action comes out of that
document? To this point, it just seems
like a large press release.
Mr. Stefanson: I can assure the member for Osborne it was
not a large press release. From my
perspective and our government's perspective, it is exactly what it is
called. It is a framework for economic
growth. It does not have an individual
documentation of each and every initiative that each and every department will
be doing, but it is obviously creating the parameters that we, as a government,
will function within.
We
talked at length about the whole issue of an environment conducive to
entrepreneurship, enterprise formation and growth. Obviously, that affects the
kinds of decisions you see us make in the field of taxation. You see the decisions made, not only holding
the line, but selectively reducing some taxes in given areas, whether it is
railway fuel, aviation fuel and so on.
You see the extension of the research and development tax credit; you see
the extension of the manufacturing tax credit‑‑those kinds of
initiatives that are all part of creating that kind of an environment.
* (1610)
One
of the other points is a focus on innovation.
Last year we created the Economic Innovation and Technology
Council. They have been, from my perspective,
working very diligently on a whole range of fronts to deal with issues related
to research and development and innovation.
They have held a series of forums with Manitobans to garner their views,
whether it is in agri‑food, whether it is in rural development, whether
it is in quality management, whatever it might be.
They
also are in process of developing the parameters around the allocation of the
resources that have been attached to them through this department, the funding
that they have been provided with to deal with research and development and
technology development. Those will be
parts of this framework that you will see the details unfold over the weeks and
months ahead, but I think from my perspective, it is fundamental to have the
broad parameters, the things that you believe in.
It
is fine to talk about it as being a press release, but even these 10 points,
does the member for Osborne fundamentally believe that those are the
parameters, that is the framework a government should be operating within? Then judge us on the individual programs and
accomplishments within those frameworks.
I
will gladly speak about the specific things that you see us do as it relates to
innovation, as it relates to the fiscal climate, as it relates to trade and
export orientation, as it relates to skills training and so on and so forth,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, but you see this is
exactly my problem. I mean, I said to
the minister when I first responded to his comments on this plan that there is
nothing in it that I would oppose, nothing in it that I would say is a bad
thing or a misdirection. It just strikes
me that it is pretty thin soup after five years in government to come out with
what is essentially a description. It is
a collection of words and adjectives and high‑sounding sort of
phraseology.
Surely,
the real question is‑‑and let us take an area. Let us be specific for a minute. You talked about something that sounded like
a specific action and that was research and development. You target that as an area that is
important. You talk about some changes
in tax crediting, and there have been attempts in different areas to do
that. What is the target? Have you set a
target? Have you said you want to get a
combination of public and private sector up to a certain level? Has there been
an increase? What is the increase? What is the quantifiable result, I guess is
my question. Let us move away from the
high‑sounding phrases and just get down to find out, well, what is
happening on the street. Do we have more
activity or less activity, and if so, how much more or how much less and what
do we attribute it to?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Osborne
and I have talked about this before. It
is one area that I think
In
this particular area what we have done is, we have established a council
approximately a year ago drawn from a broad range of sectors of our
community. They are working with many
facilities and institutions in our province, our universities, our different
laboratories and so on, with the objective of government in part providing
additional funding, but just as importantly tying all of that into the private
sector and to our research facilities in terms of the allocation that they make
to research and development.
Obviously,
the objective is the direct jobs created during that whole research and
development process, but more importantly the jobs that are created from the
commercialization that can flow from the research and development work
done. That is an objective.
I
cannot give the member an absolute quantifiable number that we anticipate that
as a result of that we will have X number of thousand jobs, but each allocation
of resources will ultimately be judged on the jobs that they create and the
commercialization that flows from it. TR
Labs will create some jobs in
So
the fundamental point here from my perspective is we feel we have the structure
in place. We feel we have given them now
a reasonable allocation of government resources. They have a fund of $10 million to start to
utilize for research and development and innovation technology, and they are
working with the
Certainly,
I hope to be here. I guess the
honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) might not be here years from now
that we can sit and say, with that fund and with these initiatives, here is the
output. I am pleased with the structure,
and I am pleased with the kinds of resources that we now are starting to attach
in that area and the priority that we are starting to give it as a government.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, well, let us just
continue with research and development for a minute, because the minister is
right. He has covered the ground in
terms of the importance of it. I do not
expect him to give us sort of set limits in terms of specific jobs, because I
do not think that is the kind of measure you look for from this particular kind
of initiative, so I am quite prepared to not hold him accountable for that.
I
am interested though when you set out to do something, your council has
identified that this is an important area and you have set out with the goal of
causing more, creating, adding to, having a net increase in the amount, the
quantity of research and development.
That is a very broad definition.
So presumably to do that you must have some sense of how much activity
is taking place today and some means of quantifying that. Stats
The
question is, do you have some target as to where you would like to see us
going, what level you think we would be comfortable at?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at the early part of
our discussion in this area, I prefaced by saying I felt Canada was not
spending a great deal and that Manitoba relative to Canada, this is one area
that we have been at the lower end of the spectrum. There are the economic indicators, the gross
expenditure on research and development and various economic bases that we have
to start from. As an example,
* (1620)
I
think more important is not only an increase in our allocation of funds but how
our funds can be levered to create other funds.
So we have now set aside a $10 million fund for EITC, and some might
criticize them for not having all of the parameters in place, but our direction
has been consistently to them, when they come forward with the plan, be sure it
is right, be sure it has the support of the business community and of the
academic community and so on.
So
that is something that will unfold during the course of this year and,
hopefully, will be something that is supported by the honourable members. We have a base to start from that is low
within
We
finally have seen the tendering close on the construction of the virology lab
in Winnipeg‑‑obviously benefits from the construction, but more
importantly the kind of research work that will flow into our province through
that facility.
I
want to assure the member we have been in continual discussion with the
pharmaceutical industry in terms of what we consider the very low percentage of
the R & D dollars spent by the pharmaceutical industry, the Pharmaceutical
Manufacturers Association of Canada, in
We
had a pharmaceutical fair here in
We
continually work with the pharmaceutical industry. I have had multinational pharmaceutical
companies, several of them in my office over the last period of months, and I
am very optimistic that we will start to see more dollars spent by them in our
province. I believe that will
happen. They are reviewing‑‑I
do not know if it has been finalized‑‑allocating a certain portion to
the National Research Council. That
portion would be‑‑Medical Research Council‑‑distributed
on the basis of a peer review. Traditionally, that peer review from the Medical
Research Council,
So
we have a base to start from that is low.
We are allocating more resources directly as a government. We are working in various sectors. When I refer to virology, it is because in
part of the emphasis, health care, health industry is one of our targeted areas
as a government. The pharmaceutical
industry is part of the health care, another targeted area.
Aerospace
community‑‑we continue to work within the aerospace community with
We
are working on the Earth Environment Space Initiative co‑operatively with
the other three western provinces with the nucleus of that being here in
So
there are a range of fronts that, from my perspective, add to the base of R
& D being done in our province, and in the long run that can only be
healthy for our economy.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, and I think the minister understates
their involvement with the $7 million and $9 million. Certainly at the University of Manitoba there
is‑‑off the top of my head‑‑some $50 million or $60
million being spent on R & D and some of it is coming out of the Manitoba
Telephone System, Manitoba Hydro and other arms of government that are
supporting that.
Mr. Stefanson: Just for clarification, that was direct
provincial government expenditures, if you took all of our department.
Mr. Alcock: It is interesting though. Gross measures are often simply that, and I
shall not spend a lot of time quoting the various statistics among the
industrialized countries, but the minister references that
The
most recent figure I saw, I think, was that Canada‑‑again we use a
measure that perhaps the minister does not like as much, GDP‑‑but
it is one measure of the proportion of one's wealth that one puts toward
research and development. I think Canada
is credited with 1.8 percent of GDP being spent on all forms, private and
public sector R & D versus a G‑7 average that I think is‑‑off
the top of my head‑‑3.1, 3.2 percent, something like that, going up
to a high of, getting close to 4 percent in Japan, and I think under 3 in the
United Kingdom‑‑something in that area.
But
say it was at 2 percent of GDP in
So
well less than half of what we would be at to meet a measure that is
considerably less‑‑and then I guess that is the frustration I have
when I see the government talking about a $7 million initiative. The gap seems to be so enormous.
Mr. Stefanson: The most recent figure I have in terms of the
gross expenditure and R & D in
Again,
using his comparison, that is why I agree that
Mr. Alcock: I should say too that I do not sit here and
expect the minister to all of a sudden move from $7 million to $200
million. I mean I am not as out of touch
with the real world as to suggest anything like that.
But
given the size of the gap, given the size of the difference, what sort of hope
does the minister have? What sort of
initiative does he have in place that is going to replace that? I would expect a lot of that is going to have
to come from the private sector, given government's inability to fund at both
levels.
Mr. Stefanson: Well, I think the member is correct. I think an awful lot of it has to come from
the private sector. I think there is a
role for government to play, and we have attached some additional resources,
but to narrow that gap, the vast majority has to come from the private sector.
From
my perspective, there are some things that have to happen as a result, and that
is where organizations like the EITC become fundamental. Because I think the whole need and focus on
research, development and innovation has to be heightened in a province like
But
ultimately Manitobans, in particular the business community, have to buy into
that, and have to recognize the long‑term benefits from those expenditures,
from setting aside a certain percentage of their budget every year, in
particular industries, to do the kind of research work. Other things that governments can do, rather
than direct financial support, obviously through the taxation system there are
some things that can be done through tax credits and so on. There has to be a fundamental commitment from
individual businesses themselves to recognize the importance.
I
think that is really as much of a starting point or as much as one of the biggest
challenges for all of us‑‑the business community itself. I have sat through some of the meetings of
the Economic Innovation and Technology Council, 30 individuals with a broad
range of abilities and backgrounds. I
think it is individuals like that and other individuals in
Mr. Alcock: I certainly agree with that. I think the federal government has a larger
role to play in this also, particularly in the national distribution of the
resources for R & D. Let us move off
R & D for a minute because we are not going to solve that one here.
The
minister was chairing or co‑chairing, I think you referenced this in your
opening remarks, the national committee on interprovincial trade barriers. Again, we see an issue that has been‑‑I
mean this thing was written about prewar, and we see most recently actions that
seem to move directly counter to the elimination of barriers. Can the minister give us perhaps a more
hopeful report on what in fact is occurring?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not know if it is
prewar, but certainly over the last several years there has been a lot of talk
on interprovincial trade barriers within
I
think the member is fully aware of the procurement agreement that was signed
originally by the western provinces and then was signed nationally. Then there was a national agreement on beer
that at that particular point in time
* (1630)
Obviously,
the member knows full well there is a series of other sectors. You go beyond procurement when you are
talking about interprovincial trade barriers.
You are not only talking about goods, you are talking about services,
you are talking about capital, you are talking about people, the four
fundamental areas. You get into the
other line departments. You get into
agricultural issues. You get into
environmental issues and so on.
Back
at our March meeting this year when we developed originally the comprehensive
approach, we said provinces have been dealing with this realistically since
about '86 and have made very little progress.
The suggestion was made to try and deal with it comprehensively, to get
all of the sectors on the table because within the individual provinces there
are sensitivities. Some provinces are
concerned about winning and losing, so to speak, when it deals with some of
their Crowns or some of the other sectors.
There
was unanimous agreement amongst all of the provinces from three political
parties to, yes, let us start a comprehensive, let us do it like an
international trade agreement. Look what
has happened under free trade. Look what
has happened under NAFTA, even GATT, with the stalling, you can get all of
these other countries and get them to have issues, and in the case of
Here
in
We
have put the sectors on the table that we feel are important. There are 12 or 13 sectors that have been put
on the table that we feel are important.
There are 12 or 13 sectors that have been put on the table. We have also recognized that in some of those
we should be dealing with other committees that are in place, because with some
of the different ministries, you have committees working on issues. Most notably within Agriculture, they are
working on some of the issues that affect interprovincial trade barriers,
within Environment they are, within Financial Services and Finance ministers
they are. So we are saying we will also
work with‑‑we will not redo work that is already being done by some
committees.
The
other thing we agreed on was that very shortly we will be agreeing on an
independent chair, an external individual to chair this committee of chief
negotiators. Our target is to be back to
all of our governments by June of 1994 with a comprehensive package that
addresses the breakdown of interprovincial barriers across
It
is a very ambitious schedule, but I fundamentally believe that this will really
put everybody's feet to the fire and determine whether or not provinces are
sincere on this issue or not. We have
heard a lot of rhetoric from a lot of individuals on the importance of
interprovincial and internal trade barriers.
As you have already said, not a great deal of progress, so this will
really test the case.
I
support the concept. I happen to, at this
point in time, co‑chair the political end with the newly‑appointed
federal minister, Jean Charest now. I
think it is the right approach, and we will know by this fall how serious all
provinces are and what kind of progress we are making on this very important
issue.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you say you will know
by this fall. Do you currently have the
unanimous support of all Premiers?
Mr. Stefanson: The last time the First Ministers met, yes,
they did. As I indicated, we had an
internal trade ministers' meeting in
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
There
were some comments made by the B.C. minister at the time. He issued a press release during that
meeting. He, certainly at our meetings‑‑and
was a part of the communique that was released and indicated that they are
prepared to go through this whole review process. He expressed some concerns on their behalf,
but at this point in time, they are fully participating and are a part of the
process.
We
have seen actions between
The
reason I say by this fall is because of those kinds of things. We will get a sense by the fall. We said June '94 is the target date, but if
we are not well down the path by this fall, we are not going to hit that target
date. We will really know, now that the
committee can get down to the serious negotiations, how serious all of these
provinces are and how much progress we have made.
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps this is not a fair question, but what
is your bet?
Mr. Stefanson: It is not a fair question, but I am an eternal
optimist. With what I see coming out of
most provinces in
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let us move on
then to another area of trade, and that is the NAFTA and the remaining three
points. What is taking place?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we discussed this
a little bit the other night but, as the member for Osborne knows, we still
have three outstanding conditions as it relates to North American free
trade. The two that have been in the
media a great deal of late are the labour issues and the environmental
issues. I think, as the member knows,
We
have been fully supportive to date of the Canadian position expressing concern
about sanctions. I also said the other
night that I am pleased with our involvement, that not only our representatives
from my department‑‑seated with me is Mr. Alan Barber who is our
director of research who is participating in discussions on both labour and
environment‑‑but we have the representation from our Labour
department here in Manitoba and we have representation from our Environment
department at the meetings with the Canadian negotiators here in Canada
providing our position and our direction on those issues. So we have been very much a part of that
process.
As
the member knows, they were two concerns that we tabled back in July of '91, so
we are pleased to see that there is progress being made in the area.
Mr. Alcock: One of the issues in the establishment of the
sidebar agreements on labour standards and environment is enforceability, and
you are saying you are not comfortable with the notion of sanctions. What alternative is being put forward?
* (1640)
Mr. Stefanson: I think, as the member knows, both for labour
and environment, there is talk about obviously a body representing the three
countries with a secretariat and resources attached to it. But the kind of pressure or way of dealing
with any violations or deviations obviously can also be through an examination
of that deviation or violation and heightening of public awareness on that
issue.
At
this point in time, that has been as much the Canadian and Mexican position
that there is a fear that sanctions would not necessarily work as much and in
the best interests of those two countries partly just because of the sheer size
differential and economic differential.
We have seen some examples of late of different challenges under the
Free Trade Agreement by the
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Alcock: Without redebating this issue, the concern
simply is that‑‑and it goes back to something the minister
referenced before about competitiveness.
One of the dangers of attempting to equal other jurisdictions is this
problem of the race to the bottom. The
person with the lower environmental standards, the lower floor costs for doing
business in their country, has a competitive advantage that we may not want to meet.
As
I understand it, the nature of the sidebar agreements is to remove some of
that, to equalize the playing field. I
know, and I have a number of friends in the Mexican government in the
president's office who are phoning me constantly being very supportive of
this.
But
there are serious, serious concerns, and without some sort of enforcement
mechanism, are we not just deluding ourselves that we have solved the problem
by entering into an agreement? I mean,
we have already got an agreement that says all sorts of things about the value
of the three countries. The point is
that the Mexicans at this point in time have not responded to some of the
environmental concerns and have not enforced the environmental legislation that
they have. Without an enforcement
mechanism, how do we have anything other than an agreement and a secretariat
that will produce more reports?
Mr. Stefanson: I guess maybe it goes back to my reference of
sanctions, and the concern that we have had in
We
are saying at this point we are much more interested in pursuing alternatives
to direct trade sanctions, to countervail or tariffs and finding other
mechanisms for enforcement through financial penalties, through those types of
things because of the concern that I have already outlined. It is a concern shared by
Mr. Alcock: I am not certain I understood that last
comment, disproportionate weighting in terms of the
Mr. Stefanson: I guess the short answer is we are more
dependent on trading into their market.
It is disproportionate in terms of our level of trade into the
Mr. Alcock: So a sanction works more strongly against us,
that makes some sense. How would
financial penalties be applied? Would it be a form of tribunal that would
assess a penalty and then it would be applied against an individual country or
company?
Mr. Stefanson: We are probably getting into the discussions
that are occurring somewhere in North America right now, but a preferred
position in many respects is government to government, because it is the
governments that are responsible for the enforcement of the labour standards
and/or the environmental standards.
Again, those are matters that are potentially being discussed as we sit
here.
Mr. Alcock: That is fine, then. I will put this aside, particularly given the
length of time we have today, and I do have a couple of other questions I would
not mind getting resolved today. Just
briefly, the third element, you mentioned environment and labour.
Mr. Stefanson: The third element was adequate adjustment
assistance programs.
Mr. Alcock: And the request is that adjustment programs
be funded by whom?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what we have found
is, over the last several years, the level of federal assistance for adjustment
has been declining in Manitoba, and we are suggesting that in light of both the
Free Trade Agreement with the United States and now the pending NAFTA, there
should be a greater financial commitment, at least returning back the levels
they were at a few years ago.
Mr. Alcock: That is interesting. Could the minister just review that for
me? Post‑1988, one of the
statements that came out in 1998 some of the identified adjustment would be
taken care of through worker retraining and a series of adjustment initiatives
that would come out of the federal level.
Can the minister give us some sense of if it is declining, declining
from what base? What has been the history over the last five years?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, going back to 1985‑86,
total federal funding for training in
* (1650)
Mr. Alcock: That is interesting. Was it de Grandpre who did the study on
labour force adjustments as a result of FTA?
You are going back to '85‑86, so you are saying there was no bump
up in '89, there was no additional, we have been declining since.
Mr. Stefanson: That is correct. There was no bump up, to the best of my
knowledge, until subsequent to '90‑91, so '91‑92, when the
redirection of UI dollars was put in place.
Mr. Alcock: Have you been able to track or quantify the
extent of labour force disruption as a result of the implementation of the FTA?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie) asked a similar question the other day, because we know his
position on this particular issue, but the short answer is no. There has been a series of different studies
or reports done by the western Centre for Economic Research, the C.D. Howe
Institute, the Royal Bank, the list goes on and on with different organizations
that have done a review of the impact of the Free Trade Agreement on Canada.
Again,
virtually each and every one of them when they look at trade issues also
recognize that there have been a series of other issues within our economy that
have had an impact on trade as well. The
recession is obvious, introduction of the GST, our exchange rates and so on,
but most of them come to the conclusion that the Free Trade Agreement with the
Mr. Alcock: Well, I shall resist that invitation from the
minister to debate this particular point given that we have approximately five
minutes. Perhaps we will leave that
until Monday when we have more time.
I
do have one question on an area the minister has already referenced. I would just like to get an update on what is
happening with TR Labs.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is in the final
stages of discussion, which I know the member is pleased to hear, and I expect
to be able to make an announcement shortly.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chair, now when the minister says
final stages, does this mean that we will see an announcement, a month, two
months? It has been in final stages for
quite a long time.
Mr. Stefanson: I am not so sure, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, who
has used the expression final stages before, but I think it is the first time I
am using it. Final stages means the next
short period of time. We are not talking
many, many months. We are talking the
kind of time frame the honourable member just outlined.
Mr. Alcock: I will turn the microphone over to the member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). I would just
like to thank the minister for agreeing to as wide ranging a discussion as we
started to have, and I hope we can pick it up on Monday.
I
would like to start back with that question of GDP and distribution. I appreciate the staff being flexible enough
to stay with me on this. I know it makes
it a little more difficult for them, but perhaps we could pick that up on
Monday.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is more
than welcome. My problem might be, I
have requested a pair to be away on Monday, and if so granted I will not be
here.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, unfortunately we are
not going to finish Estimates today, so perhaps the minister will have to
cancel his plans.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I know that the minister is anxious to gear up for north‑south
trade and getting us ready for NAFTA, but we still hold out the hope that they
will follow their conscience on this one and actually stand up and defend
But
I did have something I would like to put to the minister as notice. The previous minister engaged a consultant to
review labour force issues, a consultant by the name of S.L. Bond. The minister had already spent more than
$200,000 on this study at the time.
There were no results; deadlines, commitments for the presentation of
information and reports had passed.
The
former minister, at one time, promised that he would get me a copy of that
report when it was finally prepared.
What I would like the minister to have for the next time that we do
actually meet to discuss the Estimates is a copy of the report for me, as well
as a final tally on what it has actually cost us for this report, given that we
were already promised it a year ago and more.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will look into the
matter that the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has raised, without any
commitment in terms of opportunity to release such without, at this point in
time, knowing what is in it, and whether there is any information that should
not.
But
I will follow up on all aspects of what the member for Flin Flon just
referenced, and he knows full well, I hope, that based on my track record on
some other issues, if it can be released, it will be. At this time, I will table some of the
information that we indicated on Monday night would be provided for some
specific questions that the member for Flin Flon asked on particular issues.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
* (1530)
ENERGY AND
MINES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Energy and Mines.
We
will begin with an opening statement from the honourable minister responsible.
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): I can do
it two ways, Madam Chair. I can table my
statement, if I can get a commitment from the member opposite that he will do
the same. (interjection) Fax the statement?
Okay, I will fax it in person. It
is not that long.
First
of all, I want to acknowledge the House members, all the members of the House
for allowing me to present the Energy and Mines Estimates today to accommodate
a ministerial conference the first of next week, and I thank members for that
convenience.
Madam
Chair, I am pleased to present the 1993‑94 Expenditure Estimates for the
Department of Energy and Mines. The role
and mission of the Department of Energy and Mines is to foster and promote
environmentally sustainable development, economic development in the province
based on
The
department is made up of three main divisions, Administration and Finance,
which includes the Executive, Financial and Administrative Services division;
the Energy and Mineral Resources division, which includes the Energy and Mineral
Program Delivery branch; and Mineral Industry Support Programs, which include
the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program, support for the Acid Rain Abatement
Program in Flin Flon and the Manitoba Potash Project.
Financial
and Administrative Services division‑‑the role of the Financial and
Administrative Services division is to provide centralized administrative
services which support the department's programs. Our support services range from financial and
personnel to computer services and administrative policy. The division has
embarked on service, quality and an initiative aimed at improving the quality
of service it provides to management and staff in the energy and mines
area. The division reviewed these support
services and we now actively pursue a new strategy to improve the efficiency
and effectiveness of these administrative services.
Energy
and Mineral Resources division is part of our government's commitment to
examine our departments and to make them more efficient. We have reorganized the Department of Energy
and Mines. Under our new structure, we
are providing a more co‑ordinated approach to the overall planning,
development and delivery of energy and minerals programming in the department.
We
consolidated two divisions, formerly the Energy and Minerals divisions into one
Energy and Mineral Resources division.
It will be headed by an assistant deputy minister and includes: Marketing, Petroleum, Mines and Geological
Services branch as well as an Energy Management branch. This reorganization is reflected in our 1993‑94
Estimates structure.
Madam
Chair, the closure of the Conawapa Project co‑ordination office and the
creation of the Energy Management branch are the two major changes reflected in
this year's Estimates for my department.
The Conawapa office was closed on January 15, 1993, following the
termination of the power sale to Ontario Hydro and the postponement of the
Conawapa Project.
The
Energy Management branch was created by combining the former Energy Policy and
Energy Conservation branches. This
consolidation has successfully met our goal of developing a more efficient and
effective operating unit. The new Energy
Management branch will continue to carry out the responsibilities of the former
branches. In order to achieve its goals
in the upcoming year, the branch plans to pursue a number of promising
initiatives. My department staff are
preparing a revised draft of our energy policies and will be distributing this
information to Manitobans for review and comment later this year as part of the
"What You Told Us" document under our sustainable development
initiative.
We
are currently developing an energy act for
The
Department of Energy and Mines is demonstrating a firm commitment to the
principles of sustainable development through a number of proactive
initiatives. As mentioned in the throne
speech, we are working with the Department of Rural Development to complete a
study on the feasibility of rural gasification and the development of a
government policy and possible implementation mechanisms. We are also providing technical assistance to
promote greater use of alternative energy resources, including a demonstration
project of ethanol‑fueled farm tractors, natural gas in‑fleet
vehicles such as school buses and wind‑generated electricity.
The
branch will continue to maintain and provide energy information to the public
on all aspects of energy, including general information in the form of
brochures, pamphlets, publications and fact sheets made available through our
Energy and Mines Information Centre, as well as there will be many speeches
made by the Minister of Energy on this subject.
In
fact, Madam Chair, we recently released a new publication entitled Energy in
In
response to the growing demand for energy conservation, tips and techniques,
the energy management branch is providing a technical information advisory
service on all aspects of energy efficiency and alternative energy options.
We
expanded our home energy saver workshops that are delivered throughout the
province to include a component on new housing, and we are continuing to prepare
and distribute new technical booklets on specific topics. We will continue to provide technical and
financial assistance to Fort Whyte Centre for environmental education. The centre's energy encounters exhibit was
open to the public last fall, and work is currently underway on a new energy
demonstration project.
As
in the fact, we will provide assistance related to energy efficiency
informational materials to the
Madam
Chair, as part of our province‑wide commitment to partnerships, the
branch continues to provide assistance and advice related to energy topics to
other provincial departments, Crown agencies and associations. For example, we provide ongoing assistance to
Manitoba Hydro for their Power Smart program, to Centra Gas for their natural
gas vehicles and to the Manitoba Homebuilders Association to support the R‑2000
program and the Advanced House Project.
I am proud of the role we have played in these initiatives, and I am
pleased to add that the Advanced House Projects are the first of its kind in
Our
energy management branch has also been busy working with the province's
Departments of Housing and Government Services to provide advice and assistance
on energy topics related to building, energy supplies and vehicle
purchases. At the same time, we are
working in partnership with the Department of Environment to provide information
that will assist them in the completion of the State of the Environment Report
and greenhouse gas emissions inventories they are working on.
We
all recognize the mutual benefits of working with other levels of government to
find ways of energy savings. For this
reason, we are pleased to be working with the City of
Madam
Chair, I want to further add from my notes that I believe there is a tremendous
opportunity in the energy field for a lot more research, R & D in many
areas and many fields, and we will be encouraging the Department of Energy to
broaden its scope working with Manitoba Hydro and other energy producers to in
fact do just that.
I
think we have a tremendous opportunity, as I said, to broaden our scope with
production of energy in this province, and we will be encouraging a far broader
view to be carried out in
Madam
Chairperson, the Marketing branch is actively involved in a number of
initiatives to profile and promote the sustainable development of
The
Manitoba Mining and Minerals Convention held in November of 1992 provided an
excellent forum for highlighting existing and potential growth opportunities
for mineral development in
The
branch has identified approximately 20 mineral commodity groups as having
economic development opportunities currently or in the near future. Other initiatives undertaken in the past year
include the production and publication of promotional materials such as
"Stake a Claim" in Manitoba, maps for the Lynn Lake and Flin Flon
regions, Mining in Manitoba '92, and technical geological reports. These positive examples of industry supports
will again be provided in 1993.
* (1540)
The
branch's information centre and library will continue to be a valuable source
of energy, petroleum and mineral information for all sectors of the
community. The Marketing branch will
work closely with all facets of the mineral and energy sector in 1993 to
facilitate a positive business environment for entrepreneurship. Investment and exploration are actively
encouraged.
In
keeping with this commitment, staff will continue to promote the following
incentive programs: the tax holiday for new mines, the mining tax exploration
incentive program, the prospectors assistance program and the Mineral
Exploration Incentive Program.
At
this time, Madam Chairperson, I want to acknowledge the support that the caucus
and the cabinet of the government of Premier Filmon have provided to the
industry through such programs as these.
They are extremely important, and we are now seeing substantial evidence
coming forward as to the use of these programs and the impact that they are
having on the
As
well, Madam Chairperson, the Petroleum branch‑‑
An Honourable
Member: It is not often that you
have this kind of incentive to keep it short.
Mr. Downey: Okay, I apologize, but it is important. I offered to fax it to you. I will move a little quicker‑‑
An Honourable
Member: We should get a hold of
a fax machine here, it would save a lot of . . . .
Mr. Downey: If you quit interrupting, I will get on with
it.
The
Petroleum branch's mandate is to administer legislation governing petroleum
industry operations and to encourage and assist in the sustainable development
of the province's oil and gas resources.
One
of the branch's major initiatives has been the development of the new oil and
gas act, Bill 3‑‑on which I appreciated support last night to
proceed through committee so we could move to third reading‑‑which
is currently before the committee of the Legislature. The act, when passed, will provide a
comprehensive and up‑to‑date piece of legislation governing all
aspects of oil and gas exploration and development activities in accordance
with the principles of sustainable development. Operational regulations under
the new act are currently being drafted and will be implemented in time with
the passing of the bill.
Early
in 1993, the Petroleum branch assumed duties under The Workplace Safety and
Health Act with respect to petroleum industry operations. The move results in the more efficient and
effective use of the Inspection branch, and we feel will result in enhanced
safety in the oil patch. Work is
continuing on a major project intended to automate petroleum oil information
and developing new prospects. The
petroleum industry relies heavily on automated information. A lack of comprehensive automated information
on
The
branch is continuing its efforts and aggressively marketing
The
Crown oil and gas lease sale which took place on May 5 was one of the largest
sales recently held in
Madam
Chair, the total metallic and industrial mineral production in 1992 was $1.05
billion, up slightly from last year.
Approximately $30 million was spent on mineral exploration, about the
same as in 1991. Claim staking was up 38
percent, and the total area of mineral disposition in good standing rose 31
percent during 1992. This is encouraging
for
Positive
results have been encountered at the
The
new incentives implemented by the department over the last two years have been
responsible for the relatively good level of activity in
We
also have a mining tax holiday, and the department is currently reviewing certain
mineral deposits for designation of new mine status under this incentive. To date, we have already given new mine
status for the Ferro Gold deposit and the NorAcne Gold property in the
Another
value‑incentive program is the Mining Tax Exploration Incentive. This program is designated to assist mining
and exploration companies in significantly increasing their exploration
activities in the search for new mines in
Our
government has also implemented a substantial program of relocation assistance
and training in co‑operation with the federal government, HBM&S and
We
recently completed the new mineral strategy under our government's sustainable
development initiative. This new
strategy incorporates the valuable public input we received throughout the
consultation process.
I
am also proud of our new Mines and Minerals Act and regulations. This act is the first of its kind in
The
department is also looking at other areas to improve procedures in order to
promote sustainable development. One
example is the department's new pit and quarry rehabilitation regulation and
levy. These measures will allow
government to clean up current gravel pits as well as old abandoned pits and
quarries.
Madam
Chair,
I
am very close to completion, Madam Chairperson.
In
general, the Whitehorse Mining Initiative process is designed to identify or
develop sustainable measures that can resolve issues and pave the way for a
renewed mineral and metal sector.
Madam
Chairperson, the department is making significant progress in the geological
services area. This is partly due to the
Canada‑Manitoba Partnership Agreement on Mineral Development which
provides industry with the information it needs to target its efforts towards
finding new orebodies. Geological staff
report an increased level of inquiries for information from explorationists in
the northern sectors of the province and, together with their federal
counterparts, are generating a continued outflow of new reports, maps and
briefings to focus exploration to areas where mining reserves are being
depleted.
In
the full spirit of sustainable development, my staff have held numerous
meetings with the Manitoba Mining Association aimed at identifying endangered
spaces candidate areas. Good progress
has been made, and several target areas with limited mineral development
potential have been forwarded for consideration.
Staff
have also devised a work plan that would see mineral resource assessments
conducted in lesser explored regions.
This in turn may provide new candidate areas for conservation under the
Endangered Spaces Campaign.
Madam
Chairperson, finally I would like to mention the ongoing mineral industry
support programs our government has undertaken to stimulate resource
development in
* (1550)
The
Mineral Exploration Incentive Program is a $12.5 million grant program aimed at
encouraging exploration activity in
Madam
Chairperson, we are providing financial assistance to Hudson Bay Mining and
Smelting for its environmental improvements to the metallurgical plant in Flin
Flon. Modernization of the facility will
result in the containment of SO2 emissions within prescribed limits under The
Environment Act.
In
conclusion, Madam Chairperson, I would like to express my appreciation to all
my staff in the Energy and Mines department for their hard work and their
commitment to serving the people of
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Thompson): Madam Chairperson, I will make a number of
brief comments. In recognition of the
fact that the minister does have to attend an important conference on Monday, I
can indicate that I certainly will do my best to make sure that he is able to
complete Estimates today. In fact, what
I am going to suggest we do is I will make, in my introductory comments, my
comments essentially on this department, and I will indicate a couple of areas
I would appreciate a follow‑up from the minister. He can either respond very briefly in
concluding remarks or else I am quite prepared to have it dealt with in
writing.
I
just want to indicate there are a number of areas that are covered by the
department. As a new critic actually I
enter this department with a considerable amount of interest. It certainly is vital in terms of my
constituency and northern
I
note, for example, the reference to decentralization of the department. This is one of the more logical departments
that have located in Thompson. I
indicated before, as I did with CEDF, that I fully support decentralization in
this particular department.
I
know it is sort of unfortunate in a roundabout way that now, my understanding
is, there is no need for an additional building for the Department of Energy
and Mines staff in Thompson because of the fact that due to a reduction number
of staff in the provincial building in Thompson, the provincial civil servants
were now in a position where there is room in the provincial building for those
Energy and Mines staff. So, essentially,
we are gaining some employees in Thompson, and we are losing some.
I
hope that the numbers of employees will be more significant in reality than,
for example, in terms of Manitoba Hydro, where the minister probably is aware,
40 jobs were listed as having been relocated to Thompson. What happened there was that the jurisdiction
for Kelsey was transferred from
It
did not mean any of the staff ended up moving to Thompson, or a very small
number. Staff still commute from
Selkirk,
In
our significant developments last year in this area, one obviously is the
cancellation of the Conawapa dam and the cancellation of the Ontario Hydro
sale. I have placed my comments on the
record on this in Hydro committee and also in the Crown Corporations Council,
my concern about the handling of the negotiations. Certainly it is going to have an impact on
the province in terms of economic development.
We
feel that there should still be an environmental review, particularly if the
corporate planning that Manitoba Hydro is undergoing currently lists Conawapa
as a likely site for development. We
feel that should go ahead well in advance of any start‑up resumption, to
make sure that it meets all the environmental criteria that increasingly we
attach to megaprojects. We will be
continuing to raise this, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In
the energy field, I would also like to indicate I welcome some of the comments
put forth by the minister in terms of gasification. It is something that I think should be looked
at, not just in terms of rural and northern communities. It certainly would benefit many communities
by providing a cheaper alternate source.
In Thompson, for example, we have access only to propane, which is
considerably more expensive. The natural
gas is the same in many rural communities that have either propane or hydro,
which still continues to be less cost effective.
I
also welcome the comments from the minister, the fact that there is an attempt
to look at gasification in terms of vehicles.
In
terms of alternate energy sources, I would like to also point the minister to
what is happening in terms of hydrogen power.
In
fact, the former member for River East, Phil Eyler, moved a motion, and there
was considerable debate at that time. I
think it was very much ahead of its time.
B.C. has very much a vested interest because hydrogen power can utilize
their existing hydro resources and has, I think, tremendous potential,
tremendous potential, particularly given the fact that we have only a finite
amount of nonrenewable resources available in terms of oil and gas. I think the time for hydrogen will come, and
I would urge the minister's department and Manitoba Hydro to look at
aggressively pursuing demonstration projects.
In fact, we might wish to look at some joint ventures with
I
point out that the supply for the energy can come either from the construction
of new plants but also could come from conservation as well. So there is not any bias in this. It can come from the fact we have
considerable hydroelectric potential, and I think it creates significant
numbers of jobs in
I
want to talk just very briefly in terms of energy management and hope that the
minister's department will continue with the restructuring to work with
Manitoba Hydro, which has recently entered on particular emphasis on energy conservation.
I think that is something whose time has come, particularly in terms of
increased attention paid by other utilities as well. I see Manitoba has a potential to be a real
leader in this area, and I point out again that the advantage of this is not
only that it avoids the need for additional construction beyond that which is
necessary but also provides power that can be used for export sales if that is
within the ongoing mandate of Manitoba Hydro, which I certainly feel it should
be if Manitoba's needs are met and it is economic.
I
would indicate also in terms of that that I would strongly urge the minister
and his department to look at some of the proposals that have been before it,
particularly a very imaginative proposal put forward by the Carpenters Union,
which has come up with a very interesting proposal to look at a major energy
retrofit in this province that could employ numbers on the scale of a Conawapa
development and would require, obviously, the support of Manitoba Hydro and the
provincial government.
I
could point, Madam Chairperson, to the high level of unemployment in the
construction industry, high levels of unemployment generally. I think that it is far better to have people
working than on UI and welfare, and I think in this particular case we could do
a tremendous service to the environment as well by encouraging a major energy
retrofit. I would point to my own
experience in northern
I
think that we have a golden opportunity here to take from the adversity of
having the Conawapa plant cancelled, to take that and use the resources that
might otherwise have been put into Conawapa for that purpose. I point out, this is a potentially
economically viable venture, too. We are
not talking about massive subsidization.
I think that is something that is very important.
There
are a couple of other areas I would like to talk about, particularly in terms
of mining. We have had a debate in this
House about the need for an expanded Mining Reserve Fund. I want to reiterate that again. There has been a considerable amount of
mining revenue coming out of northern
I
point out, Madam Chairperson, that we are seeing some disturbing signs in terms
of mineral prices, mixed signs actually.
Gold prices have in recent weeks been fairly healthy. I point out on the
other hand, nickel has dropped significantly, and some of the trends in terms
of base metals are of significant concern.
We are seeing the impact with Flin Flon with the downsizing. Inco in Thompson has already indicated their
plans to downsize the next number of years to 1,750 employees. We have seen the impact on communities in the
last number of years,
I
point out that the minister's report in terms of the exploration incentives is
very indicative of the kind of problems you run into in terms of
programming. I note that there was a
decrease in the grant funding because of the less than anticipated uptake of
the program. We are in, Madam
Chairperson, for some critical years in the next number of years. Increasingly
Canadian mining firms are looking offshore for exploration. The days, for example, when
* (1600)
We
have to be aggressive, and I point there to the comments I made in the
discussion on Manitoba Mineral Resources.
I think there is a role for Manitoba Mineral Resources. Certainly there is a role for some of the
types of incentives that have been brought forward by the government. While we may disagree from time to time on
the extent or the nature, I think it is very clear that the payoff on
exploration is not immediate for private companies or indeed for MMR, but the
payoff for the province in the long term is significant, and you need to have
that continuing process of searching for new reserves.
I
would also point to other developments in the mining industry, I mentioned in
terms of downsizing. There are a lot of
technological changes taking place. I
know the last time I had the opportunity to work at Inco was 12 years ago. I have been back to the plant a number of
times. I would not recognize it today,
certainly the area that I worked just shortly before being elected. Underground mining in particular has
undergone a massive change in terms of moving to vertical mining, elimination
of many of the stopes, the puller stopes for example, a complete shift in what
is happening, and that is something that we have to be aggressive with too.
If
we are going to remain competitive, I think we need to be on the technological
edge. I think technology is increasingly
playing a part. So does good labour
relations, and I would point to the fact that there has been a significant
shift over the years in terms of labour relations. I sometimes feel that we in this House miss
out on the fact that there are attempts by both labour and management to work
co‑operatively, and I think sometimes we miss that point in this
Legislature.
There
are a number of other issues that I plan on raising. I certainly appreciate the minister's
comments in terms of this area. I also
have some comments in terms of oil and gas.
There are some encouraging signs this year in comparison to last year
which was quite a tough year for southwestern
I
note the minister has announced that, and on the odd occasions the information
is there. Certainly, I want to indicate
that we feel there is a lot of potential in
I
would note that we in the opposition certainly supported the minister's new
bill which brings in a number of different areas under the one package, and we
certainly were fully supportive of that with some minor reservations that we
feel are important for the industry.
I
could say very much more, Madam Chairperson, but I would appreciate if the
minister has any comments in response to this, either if he has time in terms
of comments, or if he wants to make those comments later, it is certainly
acceptable to my side.
Just
in general, I would say there are some critical years ahead in terms of
particularly energy and particularly mines.
I think this department, though it is a small department, can play a
very key role particularly by working with stakeholders in the industry,
employee groups, et cetera, communities involved. I really would urge the minister to stress
the strategic planning aspects of the department. They are absolutely key, and I know there
have been some eliminations of SYs, et cetera, but I realize that there are
tough decisions being made between different departments. I think it would be a mistake to
significantly cut back in terms of Energy and Mines because of the key role it
can play for the economic development of
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the second opposition
party wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Thank you, Madam
Chair. I want to follow the same pattern
as my friend the critic for the New Democratic Party in the sense that I want
to make some opening comments. I want to
put some comments on the record.
Of
course, due to the vagaries of this system, we have not a lot of time to
adequately, I would suggest, go through this in some detail. I do understand that the minister has a very
important commitment Monday of next week, and so it is important that we get
through the Energy and Mines Estimates.
Madam
Chair, let me just say by way of general comment that it has always been of
some concern to me that we do not have more mining activity in the province of
Manitoba and that we do not make more of our enormous resource base in terms of
job creation, in terms of economic growth in this province. We have an enormous wealth. We have one of the wealthiest provinces in
the country in terms of our deposits, and we also have a great advantage in
terms of the smelting industry, that is, our hydroelectric power and the
availability of that resource, that power resource, and I look to, of course,
the province of Quebec.
Now,
there are lots of problems with their mining industry and their mining program,
but they have had enormous success in attracting mining smelters to their
industrial heartland, really, the
Some Honourable Member: They have the advantage of the
Mr. Edwards: Yes, I understand that one of the advantages
is the seaway. However, as I understand
it, and I do not purport to be an expert in this area, but they had enormous
success in attracting many of the smelting operations to that area, and of
course that creates enormous wealth in that province and jobs.
Of
course, the mining industry is very cyclical and that causes a problem. It needs to be highly capitalized up front; I
understand that. The result of that is
that mining companies, before they commit those large sums of money, look for
supplies large enough to keep them going over long periods of time.
But,
Madam Chair, I believe we have those resources in this province. I believe they are there, and I believe even
though certain markets are down in terms of the particular metals, the fact is
that there should be a lot more happening in this province than is. I would look forward, and I know the minister
has the same goal as we all do, to promote responsible, environmentally
conscious mining operations in the province to create wealth and create
jobs. I am simply disturbed that we have
not been able to do that in any large way and capitalize on what I see are our
very real assets in this province, that is, the very substantial ore deposits,
and secondly, the power resource which we have in abundance.
So,
Madam Chair, having made those general comments, I am looking from the minister
for some direction as to where we can look to go to attract and promote mining
development in this province. I do not
know that we have seen from this government a clear articulation of how we can
better attract investment into the province.
I know that there is a lot of pressure on government because of the high
capitalization cost to simply cough up the money and to commit taxpayers'
dollars to these ventures. I am dubious
of a number of those initiatives simply because a lot of them come with fairly
high risks.
* (1610)
I
had the opportunity a couple of nights ago to sit in on the review of the
Manitoba Development Corporation Annual Report and had a real eye opening. That was the first time I had realized how
much money we had lost at New Flyer Industries.
Now, whatever the ramifications of that were, what we got for those dollars,
that was $107 million that will be lost in that. That is an enormous amount of money. One has to, I think, learn from that and
wonder whether our dollars are not better invested in other ways.
Madam
Chair, I understand that the mining companies are also looking for very large
government investments in many cases before they come into the province, but I
do want to canvass and want to hear from‑‑and perhaps now is not
the time I am going to get that obviously with these times‑‑but
what I do want to canvass is what we can do to spur investment in the mining
industry, because I would believe we have enormous resources. I know these companies are multinational,
they go anywhere and everywhere and they are, of course‑‑(interjection)
Yes, chilly as the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) indicates currently. I have no doubt that they will go wherever
they can obviously make the most money, as they should. I see the mining industry in this province
being increasingly narrowed down to HBM&S and Inco.
Of
course, we had Falconbridge to a much larger degree than we do now, and I know
there are many other smaller companies in the field, but we have very few large
operations. I would like to see, of
course I think we all would, some plan to attract, to have that type of large
investment in our province.
Madam
Chair, as well, I also understand that you may have a wonderfully rich ore
deposit, and if there is no road to it or no river near it or no way of getting
to it, it imposes another large capital cost to build the infrastructure
necessary. That has all kinds of time
implications and cost implications, but again, I think that we still do have
the ore deposits in locations that they should be explored more than they are.
Again, I do not purport to be an expert, but I would like to hear from the
minister a mission statement as to where he thinks we can go to develop our
deposits, because there are abundant deposits and I would like to see more
activity.
The
other comments I have, Madam Chair, the Manitoba Mineral Resources corporation
I understand was before the committee a few days ago and there was a clear
contemplation of selling off the assets of that corporation. I would like to know how that fits into the
overall scheme of what the department is trying to do in this field.
I
was not in attendance. My colleague, the
member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) was at that meeting, but that is what
she conveyed to me in general terms was that there certainly was a willingness
to sell off those assets. Whether or not
there are directed efforts to do that, I do not know. Whether or not that is part of a concerted
effort to sell off those assets, I believe approximately $27 million in assets,
currently the Manitoba Mineral Resources has.
Some of that is equipment and other things but a lot of it I think is
just straight mining claim rights. I
wonder what we could do with those resources to again spur investment. I do not want to sell those off if they are
simply going to be warehoused by large corporations and not used. If they are ore deposits that are there to be
tapped, we want to find some way to attract that investment and get that
development occurring sooner rather than later obviously, if possible.
So
I do not know, again, particularly the relationship in terms of the mission of
that corporation and this department, but I assume that there is a concerted
effort which is cohesive and co‑ordinated between the two as to where the
province can attract more investment and more jobs in this industry.
Now
the other questions I had, and these are general in terms of the new mines
act. It would be interesting to know
what the experience has been with that thus far, whether or not many of the
concerns which came forward have been borne out. I would be interested to hear from the
minister whether or not he is contemplating amendments to that, whether or not
they are necessary at this point, or what kind of a review, an assessment plan
there is in place to monitor that act and monitor whether or not it is going to
be necessary to make amendments.
I
know that there was a considerable amount of consultation with the industry
prior to bringing that in. I would hope
that consultation would continue in terms of the assessment to the actual ramifications
of the act.
Madam
Chair, as well, I see that the Marketing, subappropriation 23.2(c), in this
current year has decreased. Now it is good to see a cost savings where they can
be effected. However, from the comments that I have made earlier, the minister
will know that I think marketing is a very important part of this.
I
wonder what results, what the cost of cutting, although albeit not a large cut,
but what the cost of cutting that is going to be because that is a particularly
important part of this department. That
is the area which promotes development of the mineral and petroleum resources
throughout the province.
I
also wonder what the relationship and discussions are with Manitoba Hydro,
because I think they are a key partner in terms of development of mining
resources in this province. We must be
able to tell those who would invest in our province that we will be
competitive, hopefully advantageous, in terms of the power cost.
I
know there are thermal plants in the
I
wonder if we could not develop better partnerships in terms of marketing with
Manitoba Hydro to ensure that asset that we have is used to market our province
as a place to invest, because I think it is one of our ace cards.
I
would like to know what co‑ordination there is between the Marketing
division in the department and marketing of Manitoba Hydro to ensure that we
are not only competitive but, hopefully, in an advantageous position in terms
of offering companies investment in our province that is going to attract it on
the type of scale that other provinces have been successful in doing, most
notably Quebec.
Now,
Madam Chairperson, finally I want to say that the whole area of Energy and
Mines is an area that is going to increasingly be and has been at the forefront
of environmental concern and environmental restraints. This ties in with some of my discussions with
the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) on other occasions about how we can
better have the environmental review process work.
I
am very aware and very receptive and sympathetic to developers who are now
saying, why should I invest in these provinces, this country when I have no
clue as to how long it is going to take me to get some approval, how much it is
going to cost and whether or not I will get it anyway?
The
reality is, while it is our duty to ensure that it is done, it is also our
challenge to offer to people a process which is workable, gets an answer and
does some assessments that are credible, does them in a reasonable time frame
and does them at a reasonable cost.
I
understand the balance that has to be struck.
I have spent a number of years practising law, acting for a number of
companies, some mining companies, and I know that frustration. We cannot tell
them, practising lawyers or people in the field cannot tell them anything but,
well, you know, we will do our best; it could cost any number of millions of
dollars or hundreds of thousands of dollars, and we cannot tell you when it is
going to end.
It
is frustrating to have that, because other licensing processes traditionally
have some framework, have some predictability to them. The criteria are much more clear. So I understand that there is that reality in
the private sector. I also believe that
it is important to do full environmental assessments.
I
said that in Conawapa, I said that on the
* (1620)
I
was very pleased to see, of course, that there was a move by the provincial and
federal governments on the Conawapa issue to join the processes. We have this joint, shared jurisdiction in
the environment which is a noose around our neck. It is a real problem.
It
is a problem because we have two sets of regulations and laws. They often conflict, let alone do not
mesh. They often conflict with each
other. We have all kinds of problems
with who is in charge where and overlap and duplication.
The
more that in this country we can tie that together as national standards and a
national process, the better off we will be.
I do not think that means the province forfeiting jurisdiction. I think it means the province and the federal
government sitting down and understanding that we must give investors, business
and governments who want to invest some more security of how the process is
going to work.
Because
right now it is very ad hoc. Proof of
that has been the many examples in this province in the last number of years.
That is why I have recommended, our party has recommended that, for instance,
on the Assiniboine diversion, and this applies to any other mining
developments, other things which might come along, that where there is really
even a small amount of overlap with the federal government, the federal
government should be approached and should be asked in the strongest terms to
participate, to join with the province in a joint review. We should only do this once on these
projects.
The
problem with Assiniboine River diversion or many other projects is that had you
done the provincial review, even if you had gone through it, regardless of what
the result was‑‑and I think that there is no question it would have
been in favour of the project, perhaps with some modifications‑‑but
the opponents had a very easy way to further delay this for probably years,
which was simply to go to court and trigger the federal involvement and the
EARP guidelines, the EARP guildelines, and they could have done that easily
because there are all kinds of overlapping areas: migratory birds, transboundary waters,
fisheries, inland fisheries.
It
makes it very easy for people to frustrate these processes, and I hear that
frustration voiced by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) and others
every day, but they make it easy for those people to do that by not getting it
together and having one full, credible process.
Do it, do it right, and do it once.
Madam
Chair, I believe that we would do a great service to investors in this country,
and in this province in particular, whether it be in the mining industry or others
or the governments themselves, by using the Canadian Council of Ministers of
Environment to sit down and develop a cohesive strategy and set of rules and
guidelines across the country for provincial or federal projects.
We
need some consistency in this country, and that would, I think, be the best
thing, not just for the environment and the environmental review process, but I
also think for the investors, for private industry. That would be a great thing, to give some
predictability and have these various pieces of legislation make some sense
together, because right now they do not.
I have to tell you, it is great news for the lawyers that there is lots
of confusion out there, because who gets the work for years and years and
years?
Right
now, virtually any project with any environmental ramifications, you are going
to need some guidance, and people are driven to lengthy, very expensive
processes which, of necessity, involved teams of lawyers in cases. So I am not arguing in favour of streamlining
the process for the benefit of the professional lawyers, because I think that
they understand that it would be in the best interests of their clients, but
this creates years and years of work, believe me, on even some of the small
projects.
So
I think it is time that we streamline this, and I think the Department of
Energy and Mines has a role to play in encouraging the environment officials to
get it together and streamline the process so that there is some
predictability, that we only do these reviews once, and that they have
credibility and are done in a way that the public will accept, because right
now the public will not accept the type of ad hoc decision making that is done
at the political level on a case‑by‑case basis. That is, in my
view, not just disadvantageous to the environmental community, to the
environment itself; it is disadvantageous to the proponents of these projects.
Madam
Chair, those are my comments at this point.
I do regret that we are pushed for time.
I had said that at the beginning of my comments. I do acknowledge, and I do thank the minister
because he has made himself available when questions have arisen. I believe that goes a long way in allowing us
to recognize that we have to move through this with some expedition this time
around, but I know that he will remain open on a case‑by‑case basis
to deal with questions from the appropriate critics.
So
with those comments, Madam Chair, I will conclude and ask the minister for
responses to these concerns, either in the House or in person or in
writing. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Would the honourable minister's staff enter
the Chamber.
Mr. Downey: Madam Chair, I would just like to introduce my
deputy minister, Mr. David Tomasson, who is Deputy Minister of Energy and
Mines, and as well, Mr. Garry Barnes, who is the director of administration for
the Department of Energy and Mines.
I
will assure the member, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards), that I
can give a brief response right now, very quickly, to some of his questions,
but make sure we have a follow up more fully in writing to him as to the
concerns that he has written. As well,
to the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), I want to say I appreciate the manner
in which he has, as well, dealt with it.
We have had other opportunities to discuss certain issues.
I
will, at the outset, Madam Chair, just say to the Leader of the second
opposition party that most mining companies‑‑when he makes the
comments that most mining companies are looking at the province to invest, that
is not really quite the way it is. They
are looking for an environment in which they can invest here as far as
investment is concerned, and I will at the outset say the programs that I have
put on the record that we have introduced have been well received.
I
will just give him some background as to what has happened. We are, this year, at a record high for
numbers of claims staked and permits issued for mining development in
The
environmental process, as the member has raised, is an issue, and that is one
of the issues that the national Mines Ministers' Conference raised and are
working on within the Whitehorse Initiative.
I have co‑chaired, up until this spring's meeting of the
Prospectors and Developers Meeting, the Whitehorse Initiative, of the federal
ministry and the provincial ministries on the Whitehorse Initiative. That again is one of the deals or concerns
that we are dealing with, and that is the environmental process, in fact, that
is in place. When one sees what happened
in B.C. recently, where they have basically shut down the windy Craggy area‑‑it
has been very controversial‑‑we hope that under our sustainable
development process in Manitoba and working with the public and working with
the mining sector, we are able to see a development of both the mining industry
and also protection of an endangered spaces area. That I have addressed in my notes as well.
I
have given a current update as it relates to the mining activity. We have three certainly very interesting
activities in the gold mining sector with the potential return of the
development at
* (1630)
Let
me say as well that we have had extreme interest in the
Let
me say as well the exploration, in general, is projected to increase some 15
percent this year over last year, last year's being approximately $30 million
in exploration, this year an anticipation of some 15 percent increase, which
again is encouraging.
Let
me just give a brief report on the potash industry. We have partnered, of course, with EMC, and a
visit to the parent company last fall has encouraged them to advance by one
year the 3‑D seismograph in the Russell area. Some $300,000 to $400,000 will be spent there
this fall working to identify a shaft location and other necessary preliminary
work.
It
certainly is our objective to see between now and the year 2000 the opening of
a potash mine in that community. Of
course, a lot of things are dependent upon that, the fact that potash prices
have to be adequate. The work has to be
done environmentally, that is necessary, and all things have to come together,
but I can tell you it is our objective to make sure that we have, in fact,
ourselves positioned so that we in fact can take advantage of the next
opportunity for a world‑class potash mine, if in fact that can be
accomplished over the next period of time.
As
far as the MMR is concerned, and the member raised the Manitoba Mineral
Resources, we again discussed that in Estimates the last few days, and the
member is quite free to read the comments that were made. They are still the same on Hansard and I will
refer him to that.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): They do not change from one day to the other?
Mr. Downey: That is right, they have not changed from one
day to the next, for the member for St. Boniface.
The
Manitoba Mineral Resources, as I said, I have made my comments known on
that. The Mines Act, there is an ongoing
assessment as to how it is working. I am
encouraged that with the sustainable development portions built into it that it
is the most progressive mines act in
I
say, as well, just when we are talking about that, that one of the national
concerns‑‑and the member talks about environment and other issues‑‑speaking
of environment, the important point that has to be made is that, what has
happened in Canada since 1988. In the
Canadian mining sector in 1988, there was approximately $800 million to $900
million spent on the prospecting and the looking for reserves in this country.
A
lot of things have happened since that time.
One of them has been the discouragement, certain policies of certain
governments that have discouraged investment in this country, and they found
themselves going to
So
what has that done to
The
member makes a good comment. The second
opposition party as well as the opposition member I think make very strong and
good comments as it relates to the energy development in
What
I think we have to do though is continue to strive to develop policies that
will encourage new industry, new heavy electrical users to look at
As
well, we certainly look at the whole area of wind power, gasohol, alternative
types of energy that can be produced and developed here in
I
would be remiss, Madam Chairperson, in the few minutes I have left if I did not
touch briefly on the oil industry in
The
report that was brought forward by the member for Thompson as it related to the
Woodworkers Union, the department met with the union plus wrote letters of
support to both Manitoba Hydro and to
Again,
Madam Chairperson, I want to just thank the positive‑‑I say
positive responses from the opposition critic and also from the Leader of the
second opposition party. It is that kind
of constructive criticism that gets things done in this province. I am pleased to be the minister responsible
for a department who are as well enthusiastic, and I can say that the Marketing
branch within the department have been very aggressive.
I
believe that it is utmost important that we develop orebodies, that we produce
those orebodies, that we process that ore that comes out with the electrical
energy that we have in the province to create employment and to generate
greater wealth in this province.
I,
therefore, Madam Chairperson, would ask for the passage of the departmental
Estimates.
Madam Chairperson: We are on page 46 of the Estimates manual.
1.(b)
Executive Support (1) Salaries $69,800‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $35,700‑‑pass;
1.(c)
Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries $605,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $232,700‑‑pass.
Item
2. Energy and Mineral Resources (a) Division Administration (1) Salaries
$112,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $47,000‑‑pass.
2.(b)
Energy Management (1) Salaries $839,700‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $272,900‑‑pass.
2.(c)
Marketing (1) Salaries $718,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$353,400‑‑pass.
2.(d)
Petroleum (1) Salaries $738,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$231,100‑‑pass.
2.(e)
Mines (1) Salaries $1,537,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$650,300‑‑pass.
2.(f)
Geological Services (1) Salaries $1,433,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $862,100‑‑pass.
2.(g)
Canada‑Manitoba Mineral Development Agreement (1) Salaries $459,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $280,600‑‑pass.
2.(h)
Conawapa Project Co‑ordination‑‑no amounts.
* (1640)
Resolution
23.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $8,536,200 for Energy and Mines, Energy and
Mineral Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item
3. Mineral Industry Support Programs (a) Mineral Exploration Incentive Program
(1) Salaries $64,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $72,300‑‑pass;
(3) Grants $2,000,000‑‑pass.
3.(b)
Acid Rain Abatement Program ‑ Flin Flon $3,841,000‑‑pass.
3.(c)
Manitoba Potash Project $189,500‑‑pass.
Resolution
23.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $6,167,100 for Energy and Mines, Mineral
Industry Support Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1994.
At
this time, I would request that the minister's staff please leave the Chamber
so that we may give consideration to item 1.(a) Minister's Salary.
Item
1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $10,300‑‑pass.
Resolution
23.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to
her Majesty a sum not exceeding $953,500 for Energy and Mines, Administration
and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
This
concludes the Estimates for the Department of Energy and Mines.
What
is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: Next, AJI.
Madam Chairperson: At this time, I would request if the minister
is here, the critics? Okay.
ABORIGINAL
JUSTICE INITIATIVES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be dealing with the Estimates for Aboriginal Justice
Initiatives. Does the minister wish to
make an opening statement?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Chairperson,
whatever comments I make at this point will be brief indeed. I am here to discuss with the honourable
members opposite the government's work in the past year and some of the plans
that we have for the future with respect to initiatives that we want to
undertake to make justice delivery more relevant for aboriginal people in our
province.
Certainly
we know that there is a tremendous need for governments right across this
country to address, in as co‑operative a way as we can with aboriginal
people in their communities, issues related to problems that became very well
known as a result of the report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report. But anybody who has been involved at all with
delivery of justice services in aboriginal communities and in the rest of our
communities as it relates to aboriginal people knows that those services, while
no one is claiming any bad motives, have certainly not lived up to the
legitimate expectations of aboriginal people.
There
is a sense that services are, and the system is, foreign and strange, and
certainly has shown many, many examples of being inappropriate to the people we
are supposed to be serving. So I look
forward to a discussion with honourable members this afternoon.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition
wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): First of all, I want to start off by
saying that before the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry was commissioned‑‑some
three years ago now, I guess, close to three years ago‑‑the
aboriginal people of course knew what the situation was like in terms of their
relationship with the judicial system, the legal system. For years, prior to the launching of the
inquiry, we had made presentations through various forms, through assemblies,
through meetings with government ministers and so on, by way of submitting
proposals to government, by way of just writing letters back and forth, and, as
I said, meetings with aboriginal community councils, chiefs in councils and so
forth.
I
also wanted to say that it was not only the aboriginal people who were aware of
what the situation was like before the AJI, the relationship between aboriginal
people and the legal system. It was not
only the aboriginal people who were making those kinds of remarks, or those
assertions at that time. There were also
a lot of nonaboriginal individuals, groups, who were saying the same
thing. But eventually when the AJI was
commissioned and the report was released, those assertions by aboriginal people
and others were, as we thought they would be, confirmed by the findings of the
Aboriginal Justice Inquiry, although some aboriginal people were a bit
skeptical or doubting as to what good the aboriginal justice inquiry would do in
terms of making any real changes to the way the aboriginal people are treated
by the legal system.
A
lot of us had hope, at least I did, I had high hopes that the AJI would finally
lead to some resolution of some of the problems that we as aboriginal people
were having with the legal system.
I
say legal system, Madam Chair, because that is exactly what it is. It is not really a justice system as far as
aboriginal people are concerned, it is really a legal system. After the report was released, our optimism
and our hope for any real change, for me anyway, very quickly came to an end
when I saw what was happening even before the report was released. Then, especially so after the report was
released, I became very disappointed, discouraged, disillusioned, that now that
the government had a very real opportunity to forge ahead and make real changes
to the legal system and the relationship it had with aboriginal people, it was
disappointing, to say the least. It has
been disappointing ever since.
I
know the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) and the government have been doing
things in the way of coming up with programs or pilot projects that they claim
will go a long way to improving the relationship between the aboriginal people
and the legal system, but I am afraid, Madam Chair, that kind of tinkering with
the system is not really going to improve the situation.
As
a matter of fact, as we are sitting here today the situation has not really
changed from three or four years ago when we called for the inquiry. Things have not really changed. The Minister
of Justice, for example, I know has a proposal from the Swampy Cree Tribal
Council, several proposals, but I will just mention two of them.
* (1650)
One
specifically is the case of a resident of
I
also want to mention another specific proposal by the Swampy Cree Tribal
Council. That is the justice‑‑I
cannot remember the exact name of the proposal, but I know it has been kicking
around in the ministry for quite some time now.
Just
on Tuesday of this week, I met with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council in
Easterville and Chemawawin, where they were having their annual general
meeting. I was listening to the executive
director making his report to his board.
The comments that he made were something to the effect that now, some
two or three years later‑‑he said, the proposal that we first
submitted does not resemble the one that is there now, with all the changes and
the watering down that has taken place since the proposal was received by the
Ministry of Justice. So naturally, they
are quite disappointed.
There
was reference to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry report at the annual general
meeting, primarily from the point of view that they are extremely disappointed
in that no real action was taken by the government to implement at least some
of those recommendations.
So
those would be my opening remarks, Madam Chair.
Thank you very much.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the second opposition
party wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Madam Chairperson, the critic is not available
right now. I am sure he will be
shortly. When we continue, I think like
we did with the previous departments‑‑that he will be allowed to
make short comments if he wishes. So I
would be prepared to continue on with the Estimates. Thank you.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, just to respond to some of
the comments of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), I really
sincerely regret that he feels that whatever hopes that he had had come to an
end. It is a terrible sort of state of
mind to have to live in all the time, I think. (interjection) The honourable
member says, it is a reality. I find
that very regrettable, because we have indeed been trying very hard to work on
some initiatives which we feel will be useful, which will result in aboriginal
people feeling differently about the system as it is known.
I
am sorry the honourable member feels that way.
To be in a sort of a permanent state of despair is something that is
very troublesome for me. I am trying
very hard to be positive all the time. I
am trying very hard to be open, to be co‑operative, to work with
aboriginal communities through the people in my department. The instructions I give to the people in my
department are to spare no effort in trying to work consultatively and co‑operatively
with the aboriginal communities with which we have been dealing.
I
guess I am disappointed that the honourable member feels that way, but I guess
I can take some comfort in knowing that there are a lot of people who feel
differently. I really encourage the
honourable member to look closely, as we discuss this part of the Estimates, at
some of the things that we are working on, to understand and believe me when I
tell him that our consultation process is a meaningful one, that we do not, for
example, with our aboriginal court model, which we feel is going to be
extremely important to the future of this province‑‑
Maybe
I would ask him to try to take some heart in knowing that of all the dozens of
communities we have been consulting, the information that has been coming back
to me, that working with Brian Henderson, our director of Regional Courts who
has been engaged in this consultation, the feedback from those communities has
been extremely positive.
We
have open minds. I think I gave to the
honourable member the package of information that we put out as a discussion
paper in those communities, and none of it is written in stone. We are very open to discussion with those
communities. I wish the honourable
member would take heart when he looks at the possibilities that will flow from
Judge Giesbrecht's inquest report.
We
have a co‑operative effort going on in child welfare right now that we
hope will really result in less perception and/or reality of political
interference in dealings with children and the safety of children, and that we
will have, hopefully, better‑trained people in the future to look after
children who are in need of intervention.
I
wish the honourable member would look on those things, perhaps, a little more
positively. I am not telling him to put
aside the fact that we are working in a political milieu here. There is always
going to be that.
But
really and truly, once we are finished the discussion of these Estimates, I
would hope the honourable member would try to take a more positive outlook and
at least give us some credit that effort is being made. No one, certainly not me, is going to come
along and say, there, we have fixed the problems identified by the Aboriginal
Justice Inquiry. I am not that kind of a
person.
I
know that the problems are real, they have existed for more than a century and
that it is a big, big job to try to clean up the mess that we all collectively
have left us with right now.
As
I will point out, we have made some significant efforts and made some
significant changes in some real people's lives, I suggest. Those people will tell the honourable member
that for them it has been more than just a tinkering with the system.
I
would have liked to have attended the opening of the Moose Lake Detachment a
few weeks ago. I was not given a pair to
do that. I regret that, because I worked
personally to make that happen. I was
proud of that, because I was proud of what the people in
But
that is something that the people of
* (1700)
I
wish the Moose Lake area well and I hope to continue working with them but I
also will, as we go through the discussion of these Estimates, want to talk to
the honourable member about other initiatives that are going on, about how we
are trying very hard to work with the Dakota Ojibway tribal people who have
programs already in place and we just want to improve them and keep them going
and keep the funding up for them. It is
hard because fiscal realities dictate that these things are difficult to deal
with. But I have been a steady and
unbending supporter of the DOTC and their efforts at policing and their efforts
on probation services, and I intend to continue to be that way and to work
realistically with them.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee
rise.
Call
in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Committee Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I
move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that
the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
Committee
Change
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private
Members' Business.
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
Is
there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Also
standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans),
who has one minute remaining. Stand? Is
there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202 (The Residential Tenancies
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation),
standing in the name of the honourable member for
Is
there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203 (The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
Stand?
Is there
leave that that matter remain standing?
Leave? (agreed)
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable member
for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205 (The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). Stand?
Is
there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 208‑The
Workers Compensation Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), Bill 208 (The Workers Compensation Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail), standing in the name
of the honourable member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer). Stand?
Is
there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 209‑The
Public Health Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 209 (The Public Health
Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la sante publique), standing in the
name of the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau). Stand?
Is
there leave that that matter remain standing? (agreed)
Bill 212‑The
Dauphin Memorial Community Centre Board Repeal Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), Bill 212 (The Dauphin Memorial Community
Centre Board Repeal Act; Loi abrogeant la Loi sur le Conseil du Centre
commemoratif de Dauphin), standing in the name of the honourable member for
Gimli (Mr. Helwer). Stand?
Is
there leave? (agreed)
Bill 216‑An
Act to amend An Act to Protect the Health of Non‑Smokers
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Leader
of the Second Opposition (Mr. Edwards), (An Act to amend An Act to Protect the
Health of Non‑Smokers; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la protection de la sante
des non‑fumeurs), standing in the name of the honourable member for Gimli
(Mr. Helwer). Stand?
Is
there leave? (agreed)
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with Bill 210? No, okay.
Are we proceeding with Bill 214?
No, okay.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Res. 42‑VIA
Passenger Service
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): I move, seconded by the member for
Concordia (Mr. Doer),
WHEREAS
the Royal Commission on National Passenger Transportation has released its
report entitled Directions: The Final
Report of the Commission on National Passenger Transportation; and
WHEREAS
the report targets many VIA routes for elimination including The Pas‑Lynn
Lake and Winnipeg‑Churchill; and
WHEREAS
the report itself states that the Winnipeg‑Churchill route has suffered
reduced ridership due to the decision by VIA to eliminate tour operations, and
WHEREAS
in fact, the number of tours on that route declined from 35 per year to none
due to the change; and
WHEREAS
increased fares, along with a change in the ticket price structure which
eliminated a 40 percent discount for return fares, also contributed to the drop
in ridership as noted by the report; and
WHEREAS
freight service on the VIA train is vital to the communities on the bayline,
many of whom depend on this service for virtually all the goods shipped in and
out of their communities; and
WHEREAS
many of these remote communities have no road access; and
WHEREAS
as the report also notes nearly all the ridership involves travel to and from
remote locations on The Pas‑Lynn Lake route; and
WHEREAS
in the absence of all weather roads, most of these bayline communities are
almost totally dependent upon the VIA trains; and
WHEREAS
the loss of the VIA trains would have a devastating impact on the viability of
both the Port of Churchill and the Churchill rocket range, potentially causing
the loss of hundreds more jobs; and
WHEREAS
the cost of supplying all weather roads to the communities affected by the
withdrawal of the VIA trains would far exceed the cost of maintaining the
service.
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Government of
Canada to support VIA passenger services to remote communities and to reject
the recommendations of the report dealing with VIA service in Manitoba; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly request that VIA Rail restore tour
package operations and return discount packages that encourage Canadians to
utilize VIA Rail; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly direct the Clerk to forward copies of
this resolution to the Prime Minister of Canada and to the federal Minister of
Transport.
Motion presented.
Mr. Lathlin: I am very pleased and thankful, Mr. Speaker,
to be able to rise this afternoon to debate this very important resolution,
because this resolution debate comes at a time when over the past weekend we
have experienced very serious events due to weather conditions in rural and
northern Manitoba. This resolution is
being debated at this time because the events of the past week, in my mind,
have once again shown how vulnerable northern
* (1710)
As
members will know, parts of the VIA Rail line were washed out in the major
floods that struck our province this past weekend. According to reports that I have been reading
in the paper and on television, the reports indicate that it will take quite a
long time to restore and repair the rail line that has been washed out. While the rail line is being restored and
repaired, Mr. Speaker, the people along the bayline, who are dependent totally
on the rail line for moving goods and services in and out of their communities,
are going to appreciate the rail line much more over the next few weeks while
the rail line is being repaired.
At
the same time, for those people who do not travel the rail line on a regular
basis, but do on occasion take the rail service, either as passengers or
shipping goods on the rail line to points north, those, too, will probably
develop an appreciation for the rail line while it is being repaired.
The
damages from the flood will, of course, probably total in the millions, Mr.
Speaker. Similarly, the damages
experienced or incurred from the forest fires in the community of
As
I have said before, for many of these communities, there are no other
transportation links, except by air charter.
As you and I know, air charter service is extremely expensive to use for
travelling or for communications purposes in the North. Just to give you an example of how expensive
it is, every time I have to travel by air from The Pas to, say, Norway House,
it is around $1,500 just to travel there and back. So it is an extremely expensive proposition.
For
those residents who depend upon VIA in the North, then it means that the
suggestion made from time to time, and especially at this time, that those
routes be cancelled is, of course, a very threatening situation. It causes a lot of anxiety for those people
who live along the bayline and no doubt creates a similar anxiety for others
who may use it on a casual basis or for those businesses who have to ship their
goods over the rail line. It causes a
great deal of anxiety.
Now
I have been on the VIA trains, of course, in my lifetime in northern
In
fact, Mr. Speaker, the train acts both as a passenger train and also acts as a
shipper and transporter of many valuable supplies, not to mention food, as I
mentioned before. More than half the
people travelling these routes use VIA, since it is the only way they can
travel back and forth out of their home communities.
I
remember particularly when I was young and working up North and having to use
the‑‑
An Honourable Member: How long ago was that?
Mr. Lathlin: Some seven years ago, for the benefit of the
Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger).
Seven
years ago, when I used to travel the rail line myself, working in the North, I
would always find it interesting because you get on at The Pas‑‑and
I remember the first time I travelled to
I
also remember travelling to Thompson, Gillam and Churchill every now and then,
Mr. Speaker. Again, you get on in The
Pas, and it takes nearly two days to get to Churchill by train, but all along
the way, starting right from Cormorant, which is only approximately 40 miles
north of The Pas, people get on the train and travel on to Pikwitonei, Thicket
Portage, and it goes off to Thompson, comes back and then on to Gillam and
Churchill, but all along the way, people, businesses, would bring their
supplies and goods on board all along the way.
The train does not really stop at designated places like The Pas, Gillam
and so on. It stops wherever there are
people. It stops wherever there are
trappers. It stops wherever there are
fishermen, and it stops wherever there are construction workers working along
the rail lines. So a lot of people
utilize that railway.
This
is particularly important as we go from here because in recent years, as VIA
has cut back advertising the existence of the route, particularly the route to
Churchill, it has become for those people, not only in northern Manitoba, but
for those people‑‑especially the agricultural people living in
Saskatchewan and Alberta are beginning to, well, they are not beginning, they
have always seen Churchill to be a very important community in the sense that
goods and services, grain and so on could be shipped from there quite cheaply.
Sadly,
I have regularly met people who thought the train to Churchill was eliminated
in 1989, Mr. Speaker, along with all the other cuts to VIA Rail. If the federal government does eliminate the
railway, the bayline, they will not only cause great hardship, as I said, for
hundreds of people along the bayline, but they will also cost this province
millions of dollars in lost tourism.
Additionally, the loss of the VIA Rail bayline route would put into
jeopardy both the grain elevator at Churchill and plans for the reactivation of
the rocket range.
When
I was in Churchill some four weeks ago, people there were talking about the
rocket range, and I guess the people whom they were talking to‑‑those
people who were willing to come into Churchill to work on the rocket range very
clearly told the people in Churchill that unless the Port of Churchill and
unless the rail line is protected and maintained, the work on the rocket range
would become very difficult, if not impossible.
So it is then very important to maintain the railway.
The
rocket range, as I have said, is very important to the people of Churchill,
because it has a lot of potential to create hundreds of jobs, both in northern
* (1720)
The
rocket range proposal is just now beginning to develop, of course, as we all
know, and once it does get going, it will bring more business along the
bayline. In fact, it can save both the
bayline and the port, as those people who are thinking of coming into Churchill
have pointed out to residents of Churchill.
So,
Mr. Speaker, it makes absolutely no sense then, given that situation, to allow
the bayline to die when there is such an obvious need for it currently, and
there is such an enormous potential for it in the future. There has been a major commitment of northern
Manitobans to develop the bayline and the
Mr.
Speaker, it would be a national tragedy if the federal government would shut
down the VIA service to northern
The
North has a lot to offer in tourism potential, Mr. Speaker, so I urge all
members to support this resolution and pass it today.
Thank
you very much for listening to me, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member's time has expired.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to take
this opportunity to compliment the member for The Pas for bringing forward this
resolution.
We
have looked at it relatively closely and have no argument with most of the
things he is presenting. I want to just
indicate right now, and maybe send a copy, I am going to have a slight
amendment at the end of the resolution.
The
first 11 WHEREASes I have no difficulty with.
We tried to make it a little bit more punchy, which I think the member
can probably accept, and I am prepared to forward a copy of it before I move it
later on. So he can have a look at
that. Maybe give it to both of the
opposition members.
Mr.
Speaker, the member for The Pas has just outlined some of the difficulties in
sort of a modest way we are facing with the VIA Rail services as well as with
the Port of Churchill and the rail line as such. In the five and a half years I have been the
minister responsible for Highways and Transportation, the Churchill issue has
been one of my, I suppose, most frustrating issues I have been dealing
with. With all the WHEREASes that the
member basically has outlined there, we certainly have no argument with
that. The VIA passenger line to
Churchill is a very important part‑‑and I will not repeat the
importance of it‑‑of the isolated communities up there.
Many
times, I have made presentations to the federal government, to the National
Transportation Agency, to the Royal Commission on National Transportation. We have made endless presentations to them,
always pushing hard for the retention and upgrading of Churchill, not only the
VIA Rail end of it, but also the general line and the Port of Churchill.
I
have to say that actually our lobbying has fallen to some degree, at least in
my view, on deaf ears. We have not been
that successful. I had occasion just the
other day‑‑I want to mention this to the member for The Pas, that I
had an invitation from the VIA people here to come and do a testing of their
cuisine here in their silver and blue new updated cars they have now. They do a lot of training, and a lot of young
people get employed in serving on these trains.
The maintenance is taking place.
For
But
I want to just maybe broaden this out a little bit to give an indication of the
importance of what is happening at Churchill.
I know many people from time to time say, well, let it close or sell it,
but I want to say that the Premier (Mr. Filmon), myself and many of my
colleagues, as well as opposition members, members in this House, by and large,
feel very strongly that our Churchill line is a very unique line.
The
member is correct. I think it is one of
the few rail lines where if you are on the train, if any individual stands
beside the rail, puts up his hand, the train stops and picks you up. It can be anywhere. It does not have to be at a station, which is
sort of unique. But aside from the
rationalizaton, I know some of it has to take place, and VIA Rail certainly has
done that.
Things
have been going a little better for VIA Rail, but we know the federal
government has made a decision to cut the subsidization on VIA Rail over the
next five years to the point where, unless they are going to be self‑sufficient
to some degree, basically more cuts will take place.
I
have grave concerns about that because if VIA had been given a chance‑‑and
we have to understand that the line running east‑west, for example, in
Alberta through Jasper and those areas where the line is running, you cannot
book now. You cannot get on. You have to book a year in advance to be able
to get on, because it is very successful there.
Across
the Prairies, of course, the demand is not as heavy as there, but many of the
tour packages our travel agencies are promoting promote this kind of thing
where people come in. A lot of tourists
come into
It
goes much deeper than just VIA Rail itself.
We have been promoting the idea, as the previous administration did, in
terms of having a rail car, a rail bus.
That whole history‑‑if somebody ever wants to read it, there
is a big screwed‑up mess, pardon the expression, because we could have
had it at that time. But there are so
many enemies of this Churchill line, really, that sometimes I have felt very
alone in terms of promoting it.
We
have CN that basically would like to shut the line down. They make no bones
about it. They would give it to the
province for a dollar.
* (1730)
You
know, there are the St. Lawrence Seaway people who would just as soon see the
I
think we are in a very crucial time right now.
The resolution, for whatever impact it will have, I think, is
timely. We are in a very critical
position. I know that the port is not
going to close this year, in spite of the fact that they are losing money, in
spite of the fact that Ports Canada has been asking us to participate as a
province in some of these things to continue to operate the port. That in itself is not enough.
I
think everybody knows the arguments and the fights that I have been having with
the Wheat Board on an ongoing basis, that if we moved more than 500,000 tonnes
through the
I
also believe that in spite of the fact that CN is reducing and depreciating the
boxcar fleet to the point where they feel they cannot even deliver any amount
of grain that is going to be going to Churchill, I firmly believe that we could
use the hopper cars. We have used the
hopper cars up through Limestone and that area, filled with cement, and still
they tell me that they cannot use it for the balance of the line. The most sensitive line is up to
Limestone. From Limestone north you have
a much more stabilized permafrost, which we could stabilize even more with the
cryo‑anchors. The steel itself is
strong enough to carry the hopper cars.
But
it has been such an uphill battle all the way down the line that I have felt tremendously
frustrated. When you talk to people that
have been working for CN that have been involved in some of the if I can call
it gerrymandering of information, when they finally retire from there, they
come back and say, well, those things, we basically were in a position where we
had to promote that kind of thinking.
When they talk truthfully from the heart, they admit that we could be
running hopper cars down to there, that a lot of things have gone wrong, they
have not marketed it properly, many things have gone wrong in terms of what has
happened out there.
I
feel very strongly in support of Churchill.
I mean, I am not one of the biggest fans to go down there at certain
times of the year; it gets pretty cold out there. But I think it is something so unique, if
many of the landlocked countries could have a port of this nature, they would
go crazy with the things they could do with it.
But
because we have the activity on the Pacific coast, we have the St. Lawrence
Seaway, with all the strong lobbyists out there and, Mr. Speaker, I want to
tell you that the future of the
The
cost here, basically, has not been that dramatic, and it provides a service for
the isolated communities. We have pushed
very hard; we have looked at options.
Mr. Speaker, I am jumping a little bit, because there are so many things
a person could talk about. We have
looked at options of road, to provide some kind of access for these
communities. We have considered some of the
costs if the line gets shut down.
To
the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), for example, who has adjourned the
debate on my short‑line rail legislation, I want to encourage her to look
at it very carefully, because whether that would be an option for the future or
not, but at least it will be in place there.
I
can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have had private organizations coming up and
saying they are interested in taking over the system. I say, no way. There is a federal responsibility. I am not going to let the feds off the hook
on this thing. They have an obligation
to provide these kinds of services, and I think the House itself, regardless of
politics, have all been supportive on going in the same direction. That is why I appreciate this kind of
resolution coming forward. I think
sometimes maybe how we go at it might be a difference of opinion, but the end
result of what we like to accomplish, I think, is the same.
I
recall where we had an all‑party committee at one time trying to work
together, and invariably in the House, politics does enter into it ultimately,
and it did not function quite the way I had envisioned. But there are many challenges there, and I
feel encouraged, I repeat again, I feel encouraged by the support of the
Premier (Mr. Filmon), and the
Unless
we come up with some new ways of making it viable, either by trade with
European countries,
Mr.
Speaker, I sometime want to take the opportunity to get into a different debate
on this whole thing, because I think we are not far apart. The reason I basically want to move an
amendment‑‑and like I say, the first 11 clauses of the amendment,
WHEREASes, we have no problems with.
I
would like to move, seconded by the member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson),
that Resolution 42 be amended as follows‑‑instead of reading the
whole thing, I want to go to the one area after the 11th WHEREAS, and just add:
WHEREAS
VIA service has been the subject of scrutiny by the government of
WHEREAS
the government of
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Government of
Canada to support VIA passenger services to remote communities by calling for
the upgrading of service, including the use of rail buses to increase
frequencies in local service between remote communities; and
BE
IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly encourage VIA to be more aggressive in
the marketing of their services.
Mr.
Speaker, I have not addressed all of the concerns that I would have liked to,
but I feel possibly maybe the members opposite can live with this amendment.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
On the amendment of the honourable Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger), seconded by the honourable member for La
Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), I am having a little difficulty accepting the
honourable minister's amendment because of the documentation that I have in
front of me, but I think, and Hansard will prove me right, that in the remarks
of the honourable minister, I believe, in his words were, instead of reading
the whole thing off, I think what the honourable minister has actually tabled
is the resolution, if and when the amendment was adopted, how it would read.
I
am just informing the House here, because the honourable minister has actually,
you read the entire resolution of the honourable member for The Pas (Mr.
Lathlin), and at the bottom, the honourable minister has actually added onto
it, the amendment. I believe that is
what the honourable minister has actually read into the record. So, therefore, I will find the honourable
minister's amendment in order, basically because you did not read off the
resolution‑‑just for clarification.
Therefore,
it was moved by the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr.
Driedger), seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson),
that Resolution 42 be amended. The
honourable minister's amendment is in order.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
I
was listening, both to the member for The Pas and the minister responsible, Mr.
Speaker. I, too, concur. I think that everyone inside this Chamber
believes in the intent and the gestures that are being made in the
resolution. VIA Rail has played a very
important role in the development of many different regions throughout the
country. When we had the royal commission
that made the report, there were a number of concerns that were raised, and I
think that there are a number of things that the committee itself, in its
deliberations dealing with what line should be shut down did not necessarily
factor in.
I
think, if government took a very proactive approach at trying to demonstrate
that, yes, it is a feasible line, and I think someday it could be a very
feasible line, given the right circumstances and given the right initiatives
that in fact one would not even have to subsidize it in any fashion.
* (1740)
But
it has to be provided the opportunity to be able to develop into that sort of a
situation. That means that government
does have a role to play. VIA Rail,
through the national government‑‑and I would suggest to you, even
the provincial government has an interest in looking for those alternatives
that would in fact ensure that this does take place.
So
I just wanted to add those few words, saying that, yes, we in the Liberal
caucus do support the intent of the resolution and feel just as equally as
strong as other political parties inside the Chamber that the Port of Churchill
and the community of Manitoba, as a whole, needs to ensure that the bayline
does continue on in its operations.
Just
to comment very briefly, if there is anything disappointing about the
resolution, I think the resolution itself or the amended resolution would have
been just as effective had you dropped out the one WHEREAS, the "WHEREAS
VIA service has been the subject of scrutiny by the government of Manitoba for
some time . . . ." I noted that the
member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) went through in the drafting of the resolution
and in no way condemned the provincial government, and I think it would have
been a bit higher of the minister responsible to have left that particular
WHEREAS out of it.
But
with that one little exception, Mr. Speaker, we agree with the resolution in
its entirety.
Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is the
amendment of the honourable Minister of Highways and Transportation. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt that
motion? (agreed)
Now,
the question for the House is the amendment of the honourable member for The
Pas, as amended. Agreed? (agreed)
An Honourable Member: Six o'clock.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now
adjourned and stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow (Friday).