LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Wednesday, June 15, 1994

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

 

Minister's Comments

 

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon on a matter of privilege.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by clarifying why I am raising this matter today and not yesterday, because it did occur on Monday.  The first reason is that we were in Estimates on Monday until 12:30, and I did not have an opportunity for a number of activities I thought were important to do before I brought this matter to the House.  I needed to discuss it with my caucus.  I wanted to discuss it with the Hansard staff.  I wanted to discuss it with the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick), and I wanted to try and discuss it with other committee members at the committee of Environment Estimates on Monday.

 

          The matter is of serious consequence to all members of the House and particularly the women of this Chamber.  It involves the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) and comments that he made to me during the committee.  He said, you need a slap, and he said that also with the phrase, you need to go to the woodshed.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for almost four years, and I have endured name‑calling, personal attacks, obscene gestures and members opposite saying things like I have no business being an MLA.  They may attack my ideas, they may attack policies that I recommend, but I will not tolerate references to violence or threats of violence against me.  They have gone way over the line.

 

          There are other women on this side of the House who have also had threats made to them in terms of gestures or names, and we will not be silenced, which I believe is one of the intentions of these kinds of threats.  We are here to exercise our freedom of speech, and the pin that I am wearing today from the 1919 strike says:  Ideas cannot be confined by bars.

 

          Mr. Speaker, it was not long ago that women could not vote.  It was not long ago that women could not go to university or own property, but all of these things have changed.  It was not long ago that we could not run for office, but now we can, and here we are.  We are here to work as equals.  We will work to change economic policies, education policies, health, environment or any other policies which threaten women or violate women in any way and threaten their status or put them in an inferior or unequal status.  The comment, you need a slap, exemplifies sexism and ageism that women have suffered for a millennium.

 

          The violence against women in our society crosses all sectors.  It is both systemic and systematic.  I do not know if the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) has targeted me because I am female or also because I am young.  I do not know if he has particular problems with the ideas or the things that I say, but I feel that he has targeted me with certain names in the House, as well.

 

          I think, Mr. Speaker, that I stand here on behalf of women who want to start to use power in a different way.  We do not want to use positions of power to dominate, to intimidate, to violate or to manipulate people.  This, in essence, I believe, is what is the issue here.  I think that violence is about abusing power and trying to exert control over others through force and domination, and it is usually preceded by threats of violence.  These threats must be stopped.

 

          In any other workplace, this comment would be sexual harassment worthy of disciplinary action, if not legal action.  Surely this Legislature should be leading the way as a safe place for all.  I know that many women across the province have their ability to perform their jobs affected negatively by sexual harassment and by violence in their workplace, and that is why this is a matter of privilege.

 

          A matter of privilege must relate to impediments for a member to perform their duties and must be so fundamental that it affects the dignity of all members of the House.  Mr. Speaker, I ask you to consider this matter of privilege in the appropriate manner.  Thank you very much.

 

          I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), that this matter of privilege be referred to the Committee of Privileges and Elections.

 

* (1335)

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Acting Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, as we know, this is a very, very serious motion brought forward by the member.  Although I was not here to hear all of her intervention, I would indicate that when members come forward and make certain allegations with respect to events that may or may not have happened at some point in time, that obviously we are wise to first of all refer to Hansard of that evening to fully determine what the record says.  I have not had that opportunity, but I would sense that Hansard makes no reference to this particular exchange that may or may not have occurred that night.

 

          So, Mr. Speaker, without being able to ascertain the validity of the allegations brought forward by the member, I would suggest that the motion is not in order, because as you are keenly aware, many comments are made from time to time from member to member.  As a matter of fact, it is the very essence of the society that we are in, and certainly that happens at committee all the time.

 

          I find it, though, unfortunate that the member would rise today and try, for whatever reason, to paint a picture that obviously has no evidence of fact surrounding it.

 

          On that basis, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you not to countenance the motion that has been put forward by the member.

 

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines):  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to this motion which has‑‑I did not catch the first part of my honourable friend's presentation to the House and background to the House‑‑but I assume it has to deal with consideration of Estimates Monday evening.  The one thing I did hear my honourable friend say is she tried to attribute certain comments to me which involved the word "slap," is what I heard her say today.

 

          I want to tell my honourable friend that I unequivocally, without reservation and without any hesitation, deny the use of any such language and, Mr. Speaker, I will identify exactly the circumstances for your benefit and for the benefit of the House of the circumstances that evening.

 

          I walked into that committee.  I asked a colleague, how is the member for Radisson doing?  The answer was, very quiet this evening, to which I used a phraseology which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has often used in jest across the floor, because the Leader of the New Democratic Party has often referred to members on this side of the House as having gone to the woodshed, a comment that often my friends opposite have heard the Leader of the New Democratic Party use, meaning that from time to time, when a member steps out of line according to certain circumstances of the party's policy, et cetera, that they may have been taken to the woodshed for discipline purposes, so they do not make inappropriate statements.

 

          My reply to the response that the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) was very quiet tonight was that she must have been taken to the woodshed, a reply that my honourable friend the Leader of the New Democratic Party has often used.

 

          I said that, Sir, and nothing more.  I would never make a reference to any honourable member inside this House or any member of women in Manitoba that they deserve a slap, as has been accused by the member for Radisson.  That is totally not the kind of language that I use or I condone, and I regret that my honourable friend would make such an inappropriate and false accusation of myself.  I would ask you to rule this matter of privilege, not only out of order, but frivolous.

 

* (1340)

 

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne):  Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak as an observer of this incident and in support of my colleague from Radisson.  I, too, observed the incident and heard the phrase, taking to the woodshed.  What the member is saying is correct, that this is a common phrase in this House and there is, or at least up until this time, has been no indication of what measure would follow, whether a stern talking to or whatever.

 

          However, following the phrase, taking to the woodshed, in this instance was the phrase, you need a slap.  At the time, the member for Radisson and I exchanged glances of, I would say, amazement at what we had heard and, subsequently, in a conversation, I urged her to go back to Hansard to obtain the tape.

 

          I do respect the rules of this House, and I do want to remind members that in my opening address following the Speech from the Throne, I spent about half of my time talking about the importance of members' respect for one another, about our role in terms of setting a standard for Manitoba.

 

          We have had a great deal of discussion in this House about the consequence of violence, violence of people to one another, youth violence, violence in marital relationships.  If we are going to make any meaningful change, we have to set the standard.  I would urge members to give serious consideration to this member's matter of privilege and to support it.

 

          Thank you.

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Deputy Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, as the deputy House leader for my caucus, I would like to support the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) in her matter of privilege.

 

          Very briefly, I would like to refer you to Beauchesne 25, and I would like to quote just one sentence:  "In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a Member of the House of Commons."

 

          This was recorded in debates in 1971.  I think today we would say his or her rights and privileges as a member.  What the member for Radisson is saying is that when members opposite use language that is threatening or sexually harassing, that it inhibits her ability to do her job in this Chamber and in Estimates and to carry out all of her roles and functions as a member of this Legislature.

 

          I hope, Mr. Speaker, when you take this under advisement, that you will come back with a very generous ruling that looks at this in the broadest dimensions of how we as members carry out our jobs, and I hope that you will rule appropriately.

 

          I would like to thank the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) for her intervention in this matter, as well.

 

          Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Mr. Speaker:  I would like to thank all honourable members for their advice on this matter.  I will peruse Hansard and I will come back to the House with a ruling on this matter.

 

* (1345)

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

TABLING OF REPORTS

 

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 1994‑95 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for the Department of Finance.

 

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Annual Report for the Manitoba Municipal Employees Benefits Board.

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister responsible for the Status of Women):  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the Supplementary Information of the department for the Status of Women.

 

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

 

Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs

 

Mr. Speaker:  Is there leave to revert to Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees? [agreed]

 

Mr. Jack Penner (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs):  Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First Report of the Committee on Municipal Affairs.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Dispense.

 

Your Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs presents the following as its First Report.

 

Your committee met on Tuesday, June 14, 1994, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider the annual report of The Forks Renewal Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1993, and The Forks Renewal Corporation financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1993 and auditor's report.

 

At the June 14, 1994, meeting, your committee elected Mr. Penner as chairperson.

 

Mr. G. Campbell MacLean, chairperson, Mr. Nick Diakiw, president and CEO, Mr. Al Baronas, vice‑president, Ms. Marilyn Williams, communications manager, Mr. Sid Kroker, site archeologist of The Forks Renewal Corporation and Mr. Del Crewson of Deloitte and Touche provided such information as was requested with respect to the annual report, the financial statements and auditor's report and the business of The Forks Renewal Corporation.

 

Your committee reports that it has considered the annual report of The Forks Renewal Corporation for the year ended March 31, 1993, and The Forks Renewal Corporation financial statements for the year ended March 31, 1993, and auditor's report.

 

Mr. Penner:  I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be now received.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

* (1350)

 

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

 

Bill 25‑‑The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1994

 

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that leave be given to introduce Bill 25, The Statute Law Amendment (Taxation) Act, 1994 (Loi de 1994 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives en matière de fiscalité), and that the same be now received and read a first time.

 

          His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House, and I would like to table the message.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Bill 205‑‑The Child and Family Services Amendment Act

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that leave be given to introduce Bill 205, The Child and Family Services Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les services à l'enfant et à la famille, and that the same be now received and read a first time.

 

Motion presented.

 

Mr. Martindale:  Mr. Speaker, the purport of my bill is to do what this government refuses to do, and that is to amend The Child and Family Services Act so that the Children's Advocate reports to the Legislative Assembly rather than to the minister.  This would parallel The Ombudsman Act whereby the Ombudsman reports to the Legislature rather than to any minister of cabinet.

 

          We believe this is necessary as we saw in the last session when the Children's Advocate made recommendations to the minister, but the community had no way of knowing what those recommendations were.  We believe that this amendment would correct that problem.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Holmfield Colony School forty Grades 1 to 8 students under the direction of Mr. Lyons.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).

 

          From the Lord Selkirk School, we have twenty‑five Grades 4 and 5 students under the direction of Mrs. Marcella Turnbull.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).

 

          On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Burns Committee Recommendations

Public Consultations

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  My question is to the Premier.

 

          Mr. Speaker, on May 2, I was asking a number of questions to the Premier dealing with the Jets agreement that he had entered into in November of 1991.  At the time, we were asking the Premier about the report of the Burns committee and whether he had met with members of the Burns committee.

 

          He said on that date:  I met as recently as last week with several members of the Burns committee to share their observations, perhaps their apologies and frustrations at not being able to finish the final report in accordance with the originally set target date.  During these discussions, they could only give us the indications of what outstanding matters there were.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the Burns report was originally scheduled to report in the spring.  It is now to report two weeks tomorrow, at the end of June.  There are a number of major concerns across the province dealing with the projected losses that the government was aware of in November of 1991.

 

          I would like to ask the Premier:  Has he been briefed again by any members of the Burns committee, and can the Premier advise us of how the public will participate in this debate about the losses of the hockey team and the options available to the public dealing with the future of the Jets?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had subsequent briefing in the meeting with members of the Burns committee, and the public is participating at the present time through a whole series of ways by which the issue is being debated publicly here in this Legislature, on open‑line talk shows, at public fora that have been organized by many different organizations.

 

Mr. Doer:  It was not until the opposition was able to go to the Public Accounts committee and have the Provincial Auditor obtain the briefing material that was available to cabinet and caucus of the government but not the public or the media in November of 1991 that we have full and accurate projections from the government, as they had them in November of 1991.

 

* (1355)

 

Public Accounts Committee

Winnipeg Jets

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  I would like to ask the Premier, to ensure that we do not go through another last‑minute deal where the public is not informed of the facts of the potential losses and the projections that the government may have at their disposal, would the Premier agree today that any dealings with the Burns committee will be referred to the Public Accounts committee before the provincial Premier or the cabinet makes any decisions on the future of the Jets and the projected losses for the public?

 

          Will we have the same kind of information that we just obtained last week from the Public Accounts committee available before we make a decision in the future?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, at the time that the decision was made, it was known publicly that there was the probability of losses that would occur from the agreement that was entered into to keep the Jets in Winnipeg until such time as a final decision could be made with respect to the construction of a new facility.

 

          The decision was made, Mr. Speaker, knowing two things, one, that the projected losses were approximately half of the direct revenues to government during the period of time in which that agreement would exist, that in addition to the fact that governments got back in direct taxation revenues more than twice as much as the estimated losses they would encounter, there would be employment levels of something in the range of a thousand to 1,400 people, and that the team would continue to play in Winnipeg and result in some $50 million of overall economic benefit to the community while they played in Winnipeg in accordance with that agreement.

 

          Those were the considerations that were made, that were debated publicly and were the reasons that that agreement was entered into.

 

          I might indicate, as well, Mr. Speaker, that at the time, the Leader of the Opposition did not raise any serious concerns, did not express any major opposition to the deal, and, in fact, went on record as saying he did not want to make this a political issue.

 

          Of course, we know what desperate straits he is in politically, and we understand exactly why he is going back on all of the things he said before.  That is fair enough.  He is entitled to do all of those things in the desperate circumstances in which he finds himself.

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, the only person who has made this a political issue is the Premier who negotiated a deal and withheld it from the public.  The Premier withheld this from the public until we could get the Provincial Auditor to reveal the numbers that cabinet had in November of 1991, the $43.5 million that was before cabinet in November of 1991 when this government agreed to this agreement.

 

          Mr. Speaker, all I ask the Premier to do is to guarantee this Legislature that any new agreement will come to the Public Accounts committee, so we can have the Provincial Auditor available to look at the numbers that the government may or may not release to the public.  All I am asking the government to do is have these numbers go before the Public Accounts committee and these options go before the Public Accounts committee, a positive alternative to not having the public aware of the full implications of any kind of future arrangement.

 

          All I am asking the Premier today is to give this Legislature the assurance that the Provincial Auditor and the Public Accounts committee will be involved in any future decision of the Jets, because all of us are responsible for projected losses, and projected losses are the responsiblity of the public.  That is a very simple request to the Premier.

 

* (1400)

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition is saying that he would not enter into an agreement which resulted in the taxpayer getting back more than $2 for every dollar that was put at risk, direct taxation revenue, if he would not enter into that agreement that is fine, he can say so.  He is entitled to go to the public and say that he would rather have had the Jets team not here; he would rather have not had the taxation revenue; he would rather not have had the thousand jobs; he would rather have not had all of those things.  That is his entitlement.  We will accept that from him.  We know exactly what he wants to do, and that is to simply make some cheap politics based on it.

 

          We would like to pursue things in the best interests of the people of Manitoba and ensure that the people of Manitoba are put in a position where their interests are protected, and the tax revenues that we get and the employment that we get from having the team here are protected.  That is our objective and we will continue to pursue it.

 

Waste Reduction Program

Volunteer Organizations

 

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest issues related to environment in North America is overconsumption and waste.  There have been two significant documents released lately that deal with this.  One is the government's bill on waste reduction and the second is the National Sewage Report Card by the Sierra Legal Defence Fund.  My questions for the Minister of Environment are based on these two.

 

          I would like to ask the minister how the Waste Reduction and Recycling program is going to compensate programs like the Fort Whyte Centre Recycling Program which benefits financially from a volunteer program that will no longer, I believe, be possible with the new program that the government is bringing forward.

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, the member has it totally backwards.  In fact, volunteer organizations, and particularly an organization like Fort Whyte, if we now attach value through this program to collect recyclables, then rather than just the value that is being brought from the material through the marketplace that they are receiving today being their source of revenue, but also, well in excess of several hundred dollars could be accumulated on the amount of money they collect monthly over there.

 

          Certainly, this is meant to enhance those types of programs, as well as enhance the household curbside capabilities.  It will still depend on those who are supporters of Fort Whyte to bring their recyclables there, but the recyclables will be worth far more than they are today.  So the member has it totally backwards.

 

Ms. Cerilli:  Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister needs to make that clarification to the volunteers in the Fort Whyte Program who are calling me with these concerns.

 

Transition Period

 

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Given that the transition and the scope of the government's program is a concern, how will programs like the Fort Whyte Centre and the various curbside programs in the province be involved in the transition to ensure that they are going to have their ideas and their concerns addressed in this program?

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, we announced the amendments to the WRAP legislation that will give us the legislative capability of imposing predisposal levies.  We will then be introducing regulatory proposals under the tenets of that act to attach that money to the cost of removing those recyclables from the waste stream.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the intent is that there will be an implementation committee established within the next few days.  There will, in fact, be an advisory committee as recommended under The WRAP Act, where the public and interested parties with the Recycling Council of Manitoba, for example, will be invited to participate and provide advice.

 

          Mr. Speaker, we have been working for a number of years on The WRAP Act and on proposals of this nature.  We have just spent a year of very intensive negotiations and public discussion under the CIPSI proposal for a voluntary multimaterial recycling program, and this program very much follows the principles that were involved there in terms of the types of materials and the fact that the industry would pay for the cost of the collection, and the value of the product would be enhanced.

 

          I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this will be a very well received and very appropriate program for the province of Manitoba.

 

Sewage Treatment

 

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson):  Mr. Speaker, given that the report I referenced earlier, the National Sewage Report Card, says that sewage is not just made up of human excrement and water, it contains over 200 chemicals and other toxins which enter the system from households, business and industrial operations and includes debris such as grit, gravel, tampons, condoms, rags and hair, and this is a particular concern in Winnipeg under the report, I want to ask the minister, what will the government's program on waste reduction and recycling do to ensure that the rivers, as indicated in this report in Winnipeg, are no longer used as a garbage dump?

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Well, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure how the member is able to make the leap of faith with what is a very positive and proactive approach that we are implementing in terms of collection of recyclables in this province.  I imagine she is a little worried about how valuable and how important the public is going to see this program, because it is innovative.  It is going to be a leading test in North America for how a jurisdiction can clean up a broad array of materials, not just run a very narrow‑scoped recycling program.

 

          I think the member knows full well that when she looks though this report, they have ignored the fact that Brandon is entering into a $31‑million sewage treatment upgrade.  The City of Winnipeg is in the process of what will ultimately cost them $25 million for the immediate licensing and upgrade of their facilities.

 

          They are in the process of responding immediately to the number of surveys and tests we have put forward. [interjection] Well, the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) wants to talk about a report card.  In 1987, this province‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  I would remind the honourable minister to deal with the matter raised.

 

Burns Committee Recommendations

Public Consultations

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

 

          I was very interested to hear the Premier say in response to the Leader of the Opposition's (Mr. Doer) question just a few minutes ago that he does not disagree with the need for a public debate prior to his government considering and making a decision on the options which are, one hopes, going to eventually come from the Burns committee with respect to the Winnipeg Jets.  What he did, however, was indicate that this public debate, in his view, has been served through debate in this Legislature and in other public forums like open‑line radio shows.

 

          Can the Premier give a commitment today‑‑because we do not know when that Burns committee report is going to come down, that there will, in fact, be opportunity whenever it comes down, if this House is in session, through a meeting in the Public Accounts committee or one of the legislative committees, and if the House is not in session at the time it comes down, through another public forum which brings together members of the Legislature and members of the public through a public hearing process or whatever process the minister sees fit‑‑to examine in a very public way the options that are put before this province?

 

          Can the First Minister spell out his commitment to embark upon that public process before a final decision is made, whenever this report comes out?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, every day that we meet in this Legislature, there is an opportunity for members opposite to take a position, express their views and debate the issues of the Winnipeg Jets.  To this point, the only thing we have heard from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) is that he is opposed to getting two dollars back for every dollar that is put out, two dollars in direct taxes back to three levels of government, back for every dollar that is put at risk in terms of an agreement to keep the Jets here in Manitoba.  All we have heard from him is that he is opposed to that kind of arrangement and agreement, and the Leader of the Liberal Party has said similarly.

 

          Mr. Speaker, they will have the opportunity to make their views known when the Burns report is made public.  We have no interest in sitting on that issue.  As soon as it is available to us, it will be public, and it will be the subject of, I am sure, very intensive debate, not only here but throughout all of the avenues of public opinion.

 

          All he needs to do is tune in on the open‑line talk shows all day long and find that the public is expressing their views.  All he needs to do is go and meet with the public in any forum and state a position, and the public will be out there discussing it with him.

 

          I have been out at public events.  I have been out at barbecues.  I have been out at public meetings and gatherings, and the public is talking about it, and they will talk about it.  That opportunity will certainly be there for him to be involved in the debate.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Firstly, the First Minister can give no assurance to this House as to when we might actually get that report.  Secondly, Mr. Speaker, he is now apparently content to have that public debate occur through the media.

 

          If he really means what he says, if he wants to have that thorough public review and ensure that he has the benefit of that advice, he should stand up today and commit to a process of public review, because if we are not in this House‑‑and we do not know when that report is coming down so he cannot speculate that we will or will not be‑‑what will the public review process be, where the public will have an opportunity to speak not on some sort of ad hoc basis on open‑line shows, but in a formal process which respects the right of all citizens to have a chance to come forward and express their views?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I can assure him we will be in this House.

 

Mr. Edwards:  If, in fact, the Premier is convinced, as he obviously is, that we will be in this House, when will we receive this report?  Has he, in fact, received a copy of it or a draft version today at this point?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I have received no copy of the report.  The fact of the matter is I have committed that as soon as we receive it, it will be made public and will be the subject of debate and discussion here in this House, I am certain.

 

* (1410)

 

Family Services‑‑Westman Region

Employee Transfers

 

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East):  Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier.

 

          The government has ordered the transfer of two staff in the Department of Family Services from Brandon to a small town 90 miles away in the constituency of the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) for no apparent reason.  I understand that one vocational rehabilitation counsellor and one daycare co‑ordinator are being transferred as of September 1, which will increase travel costs and overtime costs because they are being removed from the concentration of their caseloads.

 

          Can the Premier explain to this House why this move is being forced on the regional staff in Westman and eroding the service delivery of the department in that area?

 

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier):  Mr. Speaker, I know the New Democratic Party is opposed to decentralization of government services throughout rural Manitoba.  I take that as a given from the New Democratic Party.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I can tell him this.  We will not be doing things that will erode public services, and we will not be doing things that will be detrimental to the interests of good government in this province.

 

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, would the Premier confirm that a supervisor, Mr. Duncan Pringle, a long‑time and highly regarded civil servant, has resigned on principle because he was forced to reassign two staff against his professional judgment to the Roblin‑Russell constituency to accommodate the political objectives of this government?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, I reject totally his allegations and accusations.  I cannot in any way confirm what he is saying.  If he has that information, he should make it public, and we will certainly have that issue dealt with.

 

Mr. Leonard Evans:  Mr. Speaker, I trust the Premier will be looking into this and do the analysis.

 

          My final question to the Premier is, why would his government undermine the excellent program for handicapped people offered by Career Opportunities, formerly known as A.R.M. Industries, by reducing the vocational rehabilitation service to this organization which will result from this particular transfer from Brandon to another town?

 

Mr. Filmon:  Mr. Speaker, without accepting any of the preamble of the question, I will take that as notice on behalf of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).

 

CN Rail/CP Rail Merger

Transcona Main Shop

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Speaker, yesterday, I raised the matter of the Canadian National Railway Strategic Communications Plan, wherein they were attempting to limit public debate on the proposed merger between CN and CP Rail and, in fact, have targeted various groups, including government officials and the media in their efforts.  Since that time, we have now learned that the president and CEO of CN Rail has indicated that the company is now looking at merging its Transcona main shop operations with the CP Rail Calgary operations.

 

          Since the Minister of Highways and Transportation has recently met with CN officials, was the minister informed that CN is now looking at merging its Transcona main shop operations with the Calgary operations?

 

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Speaker, I have met with CN officials; I have met with CP officials.  In both cases, we have talked about the realities the railroad industry is facing.  Certainly, both railroads are downsizing in terms of the realities they are facing.  They have assured me that in the process of that, Winnipeg and Manitoba will not be negatively impacted in a comparative sense to other parts of the country.

 

          The member full well knows that any discussions in terms of the bigger question of merger of those two companies, as he raised yesterday, is subject to the bureau of competition, National Transportation Agency and significant public hearings, but I can tell the member the gist of my discussions at this time is we will not be negatively impacted relative to the other districts and regions of this province or of this country.

 

Mr. Reid:  Mr. Speaker, obviously, the minister is not aware of the comments from the president and CEO of CN Rail who says that is going to‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Question, please.

 

Mr. Reid:  What steps is this Minister of Highways and Transportation prepared to take to ensure that Manitoba does not lose further several thousand railway jobs by any merger, or is he only going to listen to the railways and the shippers, as he has only done in the past week?

 

Mr. Findlay:  Mr. Speaker, I do not think the member really realizes the favourable position we are in in Manitoba with regard to railroad jobs.  We have 4 percent of the population of the country and 12.5 percent of the railroad jobs in this country.  I think that is a very favourable position to be in.

 

Mr. Reid:  It is obvious, Mr. Speaker, this minister wants to cut the jobs down to 4 percent.

 

Public Consultations

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Speaker, since on June 9, the government hired a private consultant who held meetings with only shippers to discuss the merger of CN and CP Rail operations, why did the government not open these meetings to the general public and to railway employees who stand to be the most severely impacted parties by any merger between CN and CP Rail?

 

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Speaker, last week, there was a public meeting here in Manitoba in National Transportation Week which that member did not attend, and I was asked the question, is the meeting that he is referring to open to the public?  The answer was yes.  It was open to the public.

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Reid:  Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the Minister of Highways and Transportation made reference to the fact that I had not attended the National Transportation Week meetings that were held in Winnipeg.  First, I was never notified‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The honourable member does not have a point of order.  That is clearly a dispute over the facts.

 

Transportation Subsidy Elimination

Impact on Manitoba

 

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Transportation.

 

          This past week in both Thunder Bay and also in Toronto, the federal minister, Doug Young, again reiterated his desire to eliminate subsidies, direct and indirect, to maintain existing rail, highway and air transport systems.

 

          Given that in speeches he has said subsidies for western grain farmers and VIA Rail, in particular, are to be cut‑‑and particularly the concern we have is its impact in Manitoba and also on the bayline‑‑I want to ask the minister what details he has heard from the minister on these cuts.

 

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member has raised that question, that the members over there now realize what is going on.  It is a very serious situation.

 

          Mr. Young made some comments in Thunder Bay on June 3.  You can read between the lines, and maybe some big decisions were at hand with that government.  In Ottawa on June 8, some comments were made again, and the Liberal Party in this Legislature, in the emergency debate, tended to condone what was said and said he did not really mean what he was saying.

 

          In Toronto on June 13, the minister was very clear.  The member is right.  That federal Minister of Transport is making statements about removing subsidies right across the board in so many different areas, not only in Manitoba but across Canada.

 

          He is doing it, and the member asked me if we had any prior knowledge.  No, we did not have any prior knowledge.  He has done it without any consultation with provincial governments across this country, without any consultation with the industry that I am aware of.  He does not demonstrate any plan of action.  He is just walking away from long‑time supports to the transportation industry of this country without any discussion, without any plan.  If that is the Liberal agenda, I am astounded with it.

 

          The member full well knows we sent a very strong letter to that federal minister not accepting anything of what he said; in fact, showing to him how he is being irresponsible in that position.

 

* (1420)

 

Mr. Robinson:  Mr. Speaker, I and all of us on this side of the House find it surprising that the federal minister would keep on giving off‑the‑record speeches to 750 delegates but not to provincial governments.

 

          What efforts is this minister making to defend the interests of Manitoba?  I would hope that he would not be waiting for a final announcement on cuts.

 

Mr. Findlay:  Well, Mr. Speaker, the member knows the letter we sent.  That was certainly a very strong response.  We participated in an emergency debate here.  But, further to that, I want the members of this House to know the way we are being treated by that federal Minister of Transport.

 

          Since I have been minister, since last September, we have sent him 13 letters and received four responses.  The letter we sent last week has not even been acknowledged at this point, let alone been responded to.  So that is the kind of communication and consultation that that federal Liberal government is carrying on with the provinces of this country.

 

Mr. Robinson:  My final question is, will this government contact the other western Canadian governments in order to present a co‑ordinated strategy to defend the interests of western Canadian producers?

 

          Also, will this government ensure that the issue of eliminating transportation subsidies takes a prominent place on the agenda of the meeting of agricultural ministers taking place here in July?

 

          Also, will this minister table any information on these matters when he receives it, in view of the importance of these issues to this province?

 

Mr. Findlay:  The Premiers of the four western provinces and two territories met in Gimli just a couple of weeks ago.  They asked the ministers of transport to get together to form Team West to deal with transportation issues related to western Canada.  Obviously, it was very, very important that the Premiers, and our Premier (Mr. Filmon), in particular, took that leadership.  We are positioned to do that.  He has asked me to lead that process, and we will.

 

          This is very significant on our agenda, and we expect and hope that Mr. Young will show up at the Council of Ministers meeting at the beginning of July.  We do not have confirmation yet, but it is very imperative he does, so as a group in western Canada, we can address these issues in front of him.

 

Sewage Treatment

Government Initiatives

 

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne):  Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Environment.

 

          The National Sewage Report Card, giving Winnipeg its C‑minus grade, identifies problems with our sewage system with respect to the absence of anything other than secondary sewage treatment, no disinfection, combined sanitary and storm sewers which overflow regularly.

 

          Has the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) or the Minister of Environment met with the city to seek solutions to this continuing and embarrassing situation?

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, there is probably not any one issue that has consumed more time in the minister's office through the Urban Affairs Committee of Cabinet, through the Manitoba Department of Environment and City of Winnipeg working groups to deal with the long‑standing and ongoing problems of sewage treatment in this city.

 

          I find it, however, ironic that those who wrote this report point to Winnipeg and give this city a C‑minus, and at the same time, they ignore the fact, without making what I consider significant comparisons, that other cities are dumping theirs totally untreated.

 

          I fail to see the basis upon which some of these evaluations were made, because it would appear that the authors of this report appear to think that dilution is the solution to pollution.  That is what they have accepted in some other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker.

 

Ms. McCormick:  My second question is to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).

 

          Winnipeg sewage treatment plants were upgraded between 1990 and 1993 at a cost of $200 million.  A significant amount of the infrastructure money is committed to sewer construction.

 

          My question to the minister is, will the sewer replacement projects correct the problem of having combined sanitary and storm sewers which result in 2.5 billion litres of untreated sewage spilling into our rivers?

 

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, I think the member has hit on what is the most critical aspect of dealing with this problem.  No one is denying that there needs to be action taken.  Where I take issue is whether or not there is, in fact, acknowledgement of the expenditures and the initiatives that are being taken by this province and by the City of Winnipeg.  There is about $15 million out of the infrastructure program that will assist in reduction of the combined sewer outflows.

 

          Let us be perfectly clear, and I am sure the member knows this figure as well as I do, but the ultimate solution for the City of Winnipeg to stop any combined sewer outfalls will likely be about $1 billion, a problem of significant enormity that it will take some time to deal with.  I hope the member will acknowledge that there has been a lot of money spent in the last few years by the City of Winnipeg and the province.

 

Ms. McCormick:  Mr. Speaker, my final question then to the Minister of Environment is, as technological advancement is being made all the time, what more can we do that is cost‑beneficial or affordable in keeping with a commitment to sustainable development which considers not only the cost of doing it but the cost of not doing it?

 

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the City of Winnipeg, in conjunction with the Department of Environment, is in the process of upgrading their licences for all of their sewage plants.  One of the things they have been asked to consider is other technologies other than simply chlorination to deal with the third level of treatment of their discharges.  Of course, historically, that has meant more expense.

 

          I believe, and others are beginning to advise me that perhaps we are now going to be able to access some additional more cost‑efficient or at least more effective, if not in the same price range, methods of dealing with this disposal.  While I am not a chemist who could explain it precisely, the fact is, that is one of the things that is taking a little bit of time in the city presenting its final plans to the province.

 

Sewage Treatment

Government Initiatives

 

Mr. Gregory Dewar (Selkirk):  Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Environment.

 

          As the minister knows and as has been suggested earlier on in Question Period, the sewage containing fecal coliform bacteria has made the Red River downstream of Winnipeg one of the most degraded and polluted water courses in all of western Canada.  In fact, the amount of sewage discharged annually has been compared to the volume of approximately 60 Exxon Valdez oil spills.

 

          My question directly is to the Minister of Environment.  Is this minister now prepared to order the City of Winnipeg to disinfect its waste?

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, as I implied in my previous answer, that is, in fact, the direction that the licensing of the City of Winnipeg plants is taking.  Again, in the report that has been put together, I find it very interesting that they are not making quantitative comparisons.  When we look at the city of Montreal, the city of Vancouver, they are putting out billions of litres of untreated sewage, not just when they have combined sewer outfalls when there is excess surface water drainage into their system, but on a regular basis.

 

          Mr. Speaker, this city, at least, has done everything it can to confine its combined sewage outfalls to only periods of high surface water runoff, and at least that is confined to an identifiable solution, which is, frankly, another billion dollars worth of investment.

 

Mr. Dewar:  Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Environment.

 

          Would he be prepared to follow the Clean Environment Commission recommendation and develop a public warning system for high levels of fecal coliform for residents of Selkirk and other communities downstream?

 

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, that recommendation was accepted in principle but has not been fully implemented.  The fact is last year, it was not particularly advantageous to get it in at the time that it should have been in, and, in fact, we are continuing to work towards meeting a reduction of the fecal coliform at the same time as we deal with that other issue.

 

* (1430)

 

Mr. Dewar:  Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the Minister of Environment.

 

          Would the minister consider more frequent tests of the water as it flows through the Selkirk community?

 

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, the testing regime, as it has been explained to me, is regular, but it is speeded up under situations where it would be considered of significant importance to know if there have been changes in the water quality.  So if the member is asking for more data, if he is asking for more collection, I suggest to him that is already being considered using the regime that is in place in order to do more frequent testing if there seemed to be some element of increase in the contamination at that site.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the thing that hurts the reputation of this province and this city more than anything else in this debate is in a country‑wide rating, Manitoba rates better than any other province in a percentage of total sewage treated.  So it is most unfair and unreasonable to put it into this context in terms of the measurement of the litres without looking at the total percentage of sewage treated in this province.

 

Prendiville Industries

Cutting Rights

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of discussion over the last few months about this government's ability to negotiate deals.  In the 1989 period, when the government was negotiating with Repap, we raised concerns about the additional wood‑cut areas and the giving up of traditional use for groups and companies in the Repap cutting area.  One of those was Prendiville Industries.

 

          For a number of months, including a meeting in January of this year, Prendiville Industries has been trying to get from the government assurances of a wood supply for their post‑operations both in Birch River and in Neepawa.

 

          My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources.  Can the Minister of Natural Resources tell this House when the government will guarantee Prendiville industries the 6,000 cords, a small figure by anyone's standards, that they need to secure the 30 to 50 jobs that are part of the operations both in Birch River and Neepawa?  When is that assurance going to be given?

 

Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Natural Resources):  Mr. Speaker, I assume that the company he is referring to is the company that was one of the biggest operators within the province years ago and ultimately sold a lot of their quota at a time when the price was high, and now, we have the problem of assessing that kind of a problem.

 

          They sold a substantive amount of their quota at the time when the value of the quota was high.  I will tell the member that we are reviewing that issue.  Once we have done that, I will give him a reply.

 

Mr. Storie:  Mr. Speaker, the company has been told that the government has been reviewing this for many months.  The latest meeting resulted in a letter going back to the company which, according to one of the principals of the company, was woefully inadequate, not making any guarantee.

 

          Is the government concerned about the fact that between 30 and 50 jobs could be lost if this kind of secure source of wood cannot be found for the company?

 

Mr. Driedger:  Mr. Speaker, when things go well and prices are high, all of a sudden, we have interest from all over the place, within the province, outside the province.  Everybody wants to have wood allocations at this time.

 

          The challenge that we are facing within my department and the forestry department is to try and do an analysis to make sure that we have the best economic impact and job creation, and I am not taking the request lightly.  I have other colleagues in this Legislature who have people who have jobs at stake, as well.

 

          We are trying to deal with that issue, and we will be dealing with it very shortly.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.

 

Speaker's Ruling

 

Mr. Speaker:  I have a ruling for the House.  Order, please.

 

          After Prayers on June 10, 1994, the honourable Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) rose on a matter of privilege respecting comments made on June 8 by the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) and moved that this matter be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and that the member table his evidence or withdraw his charge unequivocally and apologize to this minister and this House.  After receiving advice from the House, I took the matter under advisement.

 

          The honourable minister fulfilled the first condition of privilege by raising the matter at the first available opportunity.  As to the second condition, that of establishing a prima facie case, I am ruling that this is not a matter of privilege.

 

          The basis of the minister's complaint was a question addressed to the Acting Minister of Justice on June 8, which was:  "What role did the government play in effectively disciplining the only judge who has spoken up against this backlog?"

 

          In her submission on June 10, the minister did not identify any particular privilege which had allegedly been breached.  Also, the matter in question related to the minister's responsibilities as a minister, not as an MLA.

 

          As I have noted in past rulings, for example on December 10, 1992, privilege is concerned with special rights of members in their capacity as members in their parliamentary work, not in their capacity as ministers or party Leaders or whips.  Therefore, comments about the conduct of a minister in the performance of his or her ministerial duties do not fall within the field of Parliamentary privilege.

 

ORDERS OF THE DAY

 

House Business

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, would you call for second reading Bill 20, followed by Bill 24.  Following that, would you call for debate on second readings in this order:  Bill 8, Bill 4, Bill 9, Bill 3, Bill 21.

 

SECOND READINGS

 

Bill 20‑‑The Municipal Amendment Act

 

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development):  I move, seconded by the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), that Bill 20, The Municipal Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les municipalités), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

 

Motion presented.

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present to you and all members of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba a bill, The Municipal Amendment Act, that will allow the collection of arrears of taxes on oil and gas facilities within the province of Manitoba.

 

          The Department of Rural Development has worked very hard to facilitate the needs of all municipalities in Manitoba.  We have worked closely with the associations representing the municipalities and with individual municipalities.

 

          This legislation permits municipalities to collect arrears of taxes on oil and gas facilities from the purchasers of oil and gas produced in those facilities.  This amendment has been requested by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, The Manitoba Municipal Administrators Association and by a number of individual municipalities in the southwest region of our province.

 

          The Department of Rural Development is well aware that this amendment is a high priority for the municipalities which have requested changes to this act.  Without this amendment, these municipalities would continue to be required to take legal action to claim personal property tax arrears on oil and gas facilities.

 

          In addition, Mr. Speaker, my department has researched similar legislation in other jurisdictions, for example, the province of Saskatchewan, to ensure fairness and consistency in the approach that we are taking.

 

          The Municipal Amendment Act, the collection of arrears on taxes on oil and gas facilities, is important to those municipalities that are affected by this industry.  These municipalities are largely in the southwest corner of our province and include the R.M.s of Pipestone, Wallace, Brenda, Arthur, Edward and Albert.  In fact, the R.M. of Pipestone has sponsored resolutions at the last two annual meetings of the Union of Manitoba Municipalities association in favour of legislative changes to this act.  Without this legislation, the R.M.s are greatly impacted because they are not able to collect the tax arrears.

 

          To give you some idea of just how severe the impact can be, Mr. Speaker, the tax arrears in some of the older wellheads in the municipality, such as the R.M. of Wallace, can add up to as much as $100,000 in a given year, which would represent about 10 percent of their revenue base.  It is obvious that government must take action to support municipalities in the collection of these arrears.

 

          It is the goal of the Department of Rural Development to work in partnership with rural municipalities and rural Manitobans to provide service to all those we serve.  Our department's mandate is to assist the communities and residents of rural areas and of this province to pursue their own priorities.  In short, our goal is to help rural Manitobans help themselves.

 

          With this legislative change, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing.  I seek the support of all members of this Legislative Assembly to support The Municipal Amendment Act, and that is, the collection of arrears on taxes on oil and gas facilities in our province.  I am hopeful that with the support of the members of this House, this bill can receive speedy passage through the process in the Chamber.

 

          Thank you very much.

 

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

Bill 24‑‑The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment Act

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 24, The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la réduction du volume et de la production des déchets, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.

 

Motion presented.

 

* (1440)

 

Mr. Cummings:  Mr. Speaker, I will take a couple of minutes to speak to this bill and because of the nature of the bill and because this is a bill that is very much enabling and leads to all sorts of possibilities in terms of how we can reduce waste and excess packaging in this province, I will try and confine my remarks to specific aspects of the bill.

 

          The Waste Reduction and Prevention Act has stood as a model for waste reduction and prevention legislation across this country since it was first enacted back in 1990.  We know that other jurisdictions have taken this bill, amended it to suit particular circumstances within their province and have brought forward legislation within their jurisdictions modeled on the basic framework that the original Waste Reduction and Prevention Act had been built upon.

 

          This act assigns stewardship responsibility to distributors of products or materials with a potential to become waste and that also allows for the development of regulations to encourage waste reduction and prevention programs in this province.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that the act itself is very much part of the‑‑will be part and parcel of the regulations that are attached to it in terms of its ability to impact on waste reduction in our province.

 

          The underlying principle of distributor responsibility was adopted in the act following an extensive public consultation process undertaken by the Recycling Action Committee in 1989.

 

          This principle forms the basis of Manitoba's waste reduction and prevention strategy, which is to achieve a 50 percent reduction of waste by the year 2000.  I would have to say that Manitoba, on a percentage basis compared to all other jurisdictions across this country, has achieved a greater volume of reduction of its waste than any other jurisdiction.  I think it is in no small part reflected by, first of all, the attitude of the people in this province and, secondly, by the fact that we now have this framework in place.

 

          The proposed amendments to the act will provide for greater flexibility in applying predisposal levies on designated products and materials and collecting the levies from manufacturers, distributors and retailers.

 

          The amendments will also allow for a wide range of WRAP program management options, but Mr. Speaker, I should point out specifically that the intention is that the act would be exercised at the highest possible level in the waste production change, in other words, at distribution or manufacturer level.

 

          The proposed amendments to the act will provide for greater flexibility in applying predisposal levies on designated products and materials and collecting the levies from manufacturers, distributors and retailers.

 

          These amendments allow for a wide range of WRAP program management options.  The proposed amendments are necessary to allow for the establishment of the Manitoba Product Stewardship program and the Used Tire Management Program currently under development by Manitoba Environment.

 

          Principles of sustainable development, you will note, have been included and written into the front end of this bill.  With the introduction of the bill, the proposed amendments will better reflect current approaches to waste reduction and prevention that are being undertaken in other jurisdictions and will again bring the act to the forefront of waste reduction and prevention legislation in this country.

 

          Proposed amendments provide the following capabilities.  First of all, they provide for clear authority for retailers to collect predisposal levies from consumers to implement a variety of economic instruments, including deposit return and buy‑back systems.  This is necessary, for example, for the proposed Used Tire Management Program that is presently being piloted.

 

          The changes to this act will permit the establishment of an arm's length corporation to manage and administer waste reduction programs and WRAP funds.

 

          These changes provide for the authority to the corporations to assess predisposal levies and to exercise the power of enforcement where necessary using the authority of the act.

 

          These amendments will permit the establishment of WRAP funds specifically for the purposes of waste reduction and prevention activities of designated materials and to allow for their administration by this arm's length corporation.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it is appropriate at this stage of the debate, but I am sure you will call me to to order if it is inappropriate.

 

          The drafters of the bill spent a considerable amount of time and were challenged in the work that they did to bring this bill forward in order to accomplish the legislative capability which I just referred to.  What will happen under the powers of this act is that we will have the ability to make sure that any funds that are collected as predisposal levies go into an independent organization which then will, through the regulated authority of the minister, be able to distribute those funds or redirect them.  In fact, Mr. Speaker, that, I think, is a key to the public receptivity of this bill because it is virtually a guarantee that not one penny that is collected from these predisposal levies will be used for anything other than activities related to the collection and disposal of the materials involved.

 

          Before I leave that part, the reason for phrasing it the way I did is that I want to acknowledge the work that was done by the drafters of this bill, because it was a unique piece of work, one which challenged them and one with which they can take a good deal of satisfaction.

 

          Further, Mr. Speaker, these amendments also retain the appropriate levels of accountability and control which are most necessary under any type of legislation where funds are being administered.  The Used Tire Management Program is currently being administered under an interim board of directors and a program co‑ordinator.  An industry‑run corporation using the powers of the bill will be established shortly to administer this program.  A tire levy, as established under regulation, will flow directly to the corporation.  The revenues from the current environmental protection tax are held as deferred revenue and will be transferred to the corporation.  At that point, a Used Tire Management board will be established to oversee the administration of the program.  This regulation is currently under preparation for public consultation.

 

          The real backbone of this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is the Manitoba Product Stewardship program which will be a province‑wide initiative designed to increase recycling opportunities in the city of Winnipeg and other Manitoba municipalities.  The program builds on the principle of distributor responsibility recommended as a key element of Manitoba's waste reduction strategy of the Recycling Action Committee, which began its work in 1989.

 

          The objectives of the stewardship program will be, firstly, to maximize the reduction, the reuse and the recycling of designated products and materials; secondly, to hold distributors of products and materials with the potential to become waste in this province, hold them responsible for the cost of managing those wastes; thirdly, we will be able to provide stable long‑term funding commitments to support municipal recycling programs, something that we have long been wanting to put in place in this province.

 

          The objectives will be obtained through the introduction of a regulatory framework developed, in part, to support the Product Stewardship initiative proposed in 1993 by the Canadian Packaging Industry Product Stewardship Initiative.  The stewardship program provides financial incentives to municipal governments to encourage the efficient collection, processing and marketing of recyclable commodities.  Total program expenditures are projected to be $8 million annually when this program is fully implemented.

 

* (1450)

 

          The Manitoba Product Stewardship program, as it is intended to be implemented, will do the following.  It will establish a regulatory framework to set predisposal levies and assessments on designated products and materials.  It will encourage the reduction, reuse and recycling of waste materials in this province.  It will establish a management board and an arm's length corporation to administer the program funding.  It will provide financial incentives to support the collection and processing of recyclable materials.  It will support the development of Manitoba's regional recycling systems.  It will establish a comprehensive monitoring program to provide for equitable funding formulas and public accountability.  It will implement a province‑wide antilitter campaign to complement recycling efforts.  It will provide a strong public information component to promote participation in the three Rs.  It will provide incentives for the development of local end‑use products.  I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that we can overly emphasize that point.

 

          Other future program areas to be addressed may include used oil, batteries, household toxic products, which would be disposed of in a much more careful manner than we are used to dealing with our recyclable materials.

 

          Mr. Speaker, in the introduction of this bill, I want to make it very clear that this is the first step to providing province‑wide recycling capabilities that will be, in my view, unequalled in terms of percentage of the population that is likely to be served.  This does take a unique and certainly unprecedented approach to product stewardship, because while this is hinged on the regulatory capabilities that will be developed within the authority of this act, the opportunity to deal with a much wider range of materials is certainly available, will certainly be capable of being dealt with under the auspices of this act.

 

          I would recommend to my colleagues opposite that the debate proceed expeditiously.  The sooner that these amendments are in place, the quicker we will be able to put in place a regulatory program to begin developing the fund that will in fact lead to the improved management of recyclables in this province.  I would encourage them to enter into the debate, to ask any questions that they might want to raise, but I would encourage them to allow this bill to move expeditiously through the process.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Is the House ready for the question?

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick), that debate be adjourned.

 

Motion agreed to.

 

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS

 

Bill 8‑‑The Fisheries Amendment Act

 

Mr. Speaker:  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources, Bill 8, The Fisheries Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la pêche, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

 

An Honourable Member:  Stand.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Is there leave that that matter remain standing? [agreed]

 

          The honourable member for Point Douglas has 27 minutes remaining.

 

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas):  Mr. Speaker, I will start off where I left off.  I was reading from the consultant's report, which is the investigation into the status of issues affecting the Manitoba commercial fishery.  I was reading the part about the role of native people in a resource allocation, and this is from the report.

 

          Where I left off was the transfer of management authority.  It says:  Over the fisheries resource from federal and provincial governments to native people and organizations, there was a general consensus that this transfer will occur and that, at minimum, will result in native people receiving specific allocations of the resource for domestic food purposes.

 

          There is speculation that native authority could be more far‑reaching and that native people would not only receive a specific allocation of the resource, but also would determine the use of that allocation.  At issue, is the nature and extent of management authority native people will exercise in the future.

 

          The potential implications for the commercial fishery are wide‑ranging.  The amount of fish available for commercial harvest will definitely change, although the direction of change is impossible to predict at this time.  Conditions under which the fish are harvested, season dates, gear restriction, also may change and these changes may affect marketing practices and arrangements.  This impending transfer of management authority will play a major role in defining many issues confronting the commercial fishery in the future.

 

          The reason I wanted to put that in, Mr. Speaker, is because when this bill is brought forward‑‑I know that in the past this government has not consulted with aboriginal people and aboriginal users harvesting the fish‑‑and it says right in that report that in the future, there will be co‑management with native people in the resource management of fish.  So if this government is serious about doing something positive, they could look at consulting and working with aboriginal peoples, especially in northern Manitoba and in remote communities.  Because like I mentioned earlier when I was speaking, the negative impact that has taken place over the cuts to the Northern Freight subsidy‑‑and it has a real impact‑‑but when you talk about the south and northern fishermen, that the biggest impact it will have is on the Far North versus the southern part of the province.

 

          Because even in southern Manitoba, Bob Christianson [phonetic], the president of the Lake Winnipeg Whitefish Commercial Fishermen's Association, and this is right from the Winnipeg Free Press dated April 25, 1991, in which the president of the Lake Winnipeg Whitefish Commercial Fishermen said:  Fishermen on parts of the lake could lose $1,500 to $3,000 in assistance per boat as a result of the scaling back of the Northern Fishermen's Freight assistance.

 

          So if that is the impact it has on fishermen from Lake Winnipeg, could you just imagine the real drastic impact it will have on fishermen in far, remote northern communities?  Who lives in those far, remote northern communities?  Who are the fishermen who operate out of those communities?  It is aboriginal people.

 

          Just to re‑emphasize that, it says right here that the Natural Resources minister at that time said he cannot deny that the cuts could lead to serious problems for fishermen whose spring season begins in about a month.  But, also, it recognized that the minister at that time of Natural Resources knew the impact it was going to have on northern aboriginal fishermen because it goes on to say:  The minister said the major portion of the aid is being targeted to fishermen in the Far North.

 

          So when the government understood this very, very clearly, how could they now consciously go ahead and make that kind of a cut, because you know in a lot of those communities in northern Manitoba you have unemployment rates anywhere from 80 percent, 85 percent, 90 percent, some communities are 95 percent, and the only possibility of income for a lot of the families is through fishing, that is a given.  It shows how little the government understands about the negative impact these kind of measures have on aboriginal remote communities.

 

          If you look at the whole bill, Mr. Speaker, the real emphasis on this bill is increasing the fine from $500 to $10,000.  I do not know how many aboriginal fishermen in northern far remote communities have $10,000 to pay for a fine, and in the beginning I do not know why anybody would break the law to begin with unless I look at it from a different angle and look at the last four years of my experience and what I have seen happening.  What I have seen happening is not very comforting to one who was raised all my life in northern Manitoba and see the impact that is happening in those communities where the communities are so desperate for jobs and getting so desperate for opportunities.

 

          I am just guessing here, but maybe the reason this government brought this bill forward is poaching or illegal catching of fish is taking place, and maybe it is increasing.  If it is, I only have to say to the government, take a look at why.  What you are doing with all your negative cutbacks in northern communities, if poaching and illegal taking of fish is increasing, maybe these individuals are getting so desperate that they have to resort to these actions to try and feed their families when the job opportunities have been taken away.

 

* (1500)

 

          One only has to look at past budgets, this budget, and you will look at the impact it has directly on aboriginal people.  When I say the aboriginal people, the reason I say that is because even the Minister of Natural Resources in 1991 said that the portion of the aid is being targeted to fishermen in the Far North.

 

          So when people get desperate and people start losing even the resemblance of hope, then people resort to drastic measures.  When you see that kind of an impact, all you have to look at is at what has happened to the ACCESS program, what has happened to the BUNTEP program‑‑it has been cut back year after year, this year 20 percent.  Social assistance, what has happened?  Foster care cuts, elimination of the Northern Youth Job Corps, elimination of funding to the Indian friendship centres, cuts to CareerStart, lack of action on the solvent abuse centres in northern Manitoba.

 

          How long have we been trying to get this government to take action to negotiate some kind of a deal with the federal government to open and operate a solvent abuse centre in northern Manitoba?  The chiefs in the North have all gotten together and supported this.  They have all recommended the community of Cross Lake which is kind of central to communities, and they are looking at satellite treatment programs in communities like Shamattawa, Nelson House, various other communities.  What has ever happened to that?  Nothing.  So if you look at the impact that these cuts have had, no wonder people are getting desperate, no wonder people are losing hope.

 

          This measure again, without even consulting the people in most need and the people that it will have the real impact on‑‑there have been no meetings, no correspondence, I am sure, with the aboriginal community.  One only has to look at the city here, in Winnipeg.  A lot of the people who are living in the urban centres have family in these remote communities, like myself, and we get food; we get meat.  I get caribou meat.  I get fish from my family up north, because that is part of my diet, and a lot of the other people who are in Winnipeg here, the aboriginal people, I am sure that they resort to their families for a little help because of the diet.

 

          What about the impact job opportunities that should have taken place?  I have been here since 1990, and I have been asking and I have been looking forward to an urban aboriginal study.  That has been promised every year I have been here.  Every year it has been promised. [interjection] Yes, that is right.  My colleague from Wolseley said they have already spent‑‑how much?‑‑over $200,000, at least $200,000, on this study, and we have yet to see one.

 

          The people whom I have spoken to in Point Douglas and around Winnipeg, I have asked them, have they seen anything?  No one has even heard of it, and yet we have paid $200,000 for this urban aboriginal study that no one has seen, no one has even‑‑well, you cannot read if it is probably‑‑I do not know if it is done.

 

          But imagine if you took that $200,000 and put it into the Northern Freight Assistance Program instead of cutting $90,000, if you used that to enhance the opportunities for aboriginal people in the Far North.  Would that not make more sense?  It would make a lot more sense than spending money on things that are not even taking place and create some employment opportunities in these communities.  It is long overdue.

 

          People have been waiting for actions from this government.  We hear different ministers talk about, oh, look at all the jobs we have created.  Look at all the opportunities.  But yet no one ever mentions that we have created X number of jobs or we have created X number of opportunities for individuals in northern Manitoba in these remote communities.

 

          All I ever hear at times is it is a federal responsibility. Well, whatever happened to provincial‑federal agreements?  I know I used to hear about ERDA agreements, northern development agreements.  I used to hear about these agreements.  They used to get about $90‑million agreements that were spent in northern communities, that benefitted directly the people who are getting the least amount of help from this government, I feel anyway.  That is my own personal belief.  Those agreements used to bring in at least $90 million, that gave opportunities to the North.  Yet since I have been here, I have not heard of one agreement that has been agreed to and implemented in northern Manitoba.  I have yet to even see that.

 

          If you look at the actions and why people are getting so desperate and losing hope, one only has to look at the unemployment rate in Manitoba.  Maybe that is why our fines have to be increased from $500 to $10,000, is because people need to try to feed their families and maybe they are doing illegal things.  But I believe that most citizens in Manitoba are very honest people, and if people do break the law or do take drastic measures, it is because that is the only alternative they have left to feed their families, because the opportunities, like I have said, have been taken away.

 

          If you look at January of 1994, the unemployment rate in Manitoba was the highest ever.  It was the highest, highest ever.  I went back all the way to 1966, and I have not seen anything higher than January of 1994.  It was 11.5, 11.5 is the unemployment rate in January of 1994.  That is the highest it has ever been, and like I said, I went back to 1966.  So if that is across Manitoba, could you imagine what it must be in northern Manitoba?  It must be a lot, lot higher than that.

 

          The other area I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, is for three consecutive years, unprecedented in Manitoba, the unemployment rate was over 9 percent for three years in a row in 1992, 1993 and 1994.  So when you have such high, high unemployment rates like that, what do people do?  How do you feed your family?  You have to feed your family, and if poaching has increased then maybe the government should not look at penalizing more, hitting harder over the head, like $10,000.  There are not too many people in northern Manitoba that I know could pay a $10,000 fine, to be honest with you.  There are very few people I know.  So why look at hitting harder, penalizing more, instead of looking at the problem and why the reason is if there is an increase in those areas, looking at the reason why and try and resolve the problem?  Do not add to it.  So look at trying to create employment opportunities, increase trading opportunities.  That is one thing that I believe that we should look at very, very strongly.

 

          Also what I would like to discuss at this time is when you look at increases of fines.  Now you increase the fine from $500 to $10,000.  Now if poaching and if breaking the law has increased that much, there are going to be individuals who will have to go to court.  So I want to give a little advice to this government and to the new Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) and hope he will listen carefully and give it some serious consideration here because when you have more people going to court and higher fines, that brings in more revenues for the Province of Manitoba.

 

          So if that is a direct fine related to Natural Resources, then I would recommend to the minister, negotiate with his colleagues to look at using the income from those fines to create opportunities for far northern communities.  Put some of that money that you bring in, put it back into the freight subsidy program because the reason it must have been cut is because the government is short of funds.  Well, if you are going to bring in new revenues, put it back to the same people who you are taking it from and who you are hurting.

 

          That, I will hope they will look at, and I hope that the new Minister of Natural Resources will look at meeting somewhere along the line with the remote, far northern fishermen and the fishermen's co‑op like in Berens River and other communities, meeting personally with them and hearing first‑hand, because he is a fine gentleman.  I am sure that the community would be very, very happy to share some time with the minister, and I am sure the minister will learn a lot.

 

An Honourable Member:  He is a good man.

 

Mr. Hickes:  Yes, he is very good, and the community and the people will treat him excellently.  That I am sure of.  He will get a good education.  I am sure, because his heart is usually in the right place, that he will come back with a new attitude and new positive ideas and look at enhancing the opportunities that are available to people in the North and not restricting and putting barriers up, because those days should be long, long gone.

 

* (1510)

 

          We should be trying to help one another and enhance the opportunities right across the province.  There should not be a border where there is a line that says North and South and most of the money goes to the South, very little goes to the North.  I do not think that is very fair and it does not help anyone.

 

          This is 1994, and whenever there are measures taken that are going to have an impact on aboriginal peoples, please meet with the aboriginal organizations and the bands and with the communities so that people understand what is happening.  A lot of times the individuals that are living and that will be impacted by whether it is a positive or a negative measure‑‑[interjection] I can finish it right now.  Okay.

 

          So meet with those communities, get some positive recommendations and positive ideas, and we will all benefit from that.  The communities will benefit.  We will benefit.  You especially will benefit as a government, because you will be working co‑operatively with the people for the betterment of Manitobans and for the communities that will have the impact.

 

          Just with those short few comments, Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage the minister again to go to those communities, meet with the people and get some good ideas and share some of your own ideas, and hopefully right some of the wrongs that have taken place.  I am very pleased to have had a chance to speak to this bill, and I hope some things positive will come out of it.  Thank you.

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few remarks to the record with respect to Bill 8, The Fisheries Amendment Act.

 

          I was pleased to have the opportunity to listen to my learned colleague from Point Douglas who has a long history of association with many communities in northern Manitoba and a familiarity with a lot of the problems facing, particularly, the commercial fisheries in our province.

 

          I too am somewhat surprised at the tenor of this bill.  I have known the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) for some time, and I would have thought that there are many more pressing issues in dealing with the fisheries activity in our province and the fisheries economy in our province than this minister has chosen to address in this bill.

 

          The government obviously is desperate, and I am not sure who they are trying to placate with this legislation.  Mr. Speaker, this may be part of the government's new Justice package, the get‑tough‑with‑offenders package, but they are missing the mark.

 

          There are two problems with this legislation and the Minister of Natural Resources knows full well what they are.  The first one is that it is pointless to increase the penalties when you are gutting the inspection services and you are gutting the number of conservation officers, when you are gutting the number of people who are responsible for making sure that these regulations are applied.  It is probably, if not counterproductive, certainly not productive.  The minister knows as well as any that increasing the fines and decreasing the enforcement is not going to produce any kind of satisfactory result.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the second problem with the legislation is that it does not address the real fisheries problems that people in my community state.  I want to relate an incident that occurred last Wednesday in South Indian Lake.  I had an opportunity to meet with the fishermen, the president of the South Indian Lake Fisherman's Association and a number of other fishermen in the community of South Indian Lake to discuss their ongoing concerns not only with the variable and sometimes depressed price of their commodity, but to address some of the other problems that they face, particularly when it comes to their relationship with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.

 

(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, I have been, and still am, a strong defender of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.  The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is to fishermen what the Canadian Wheat Board is to farmers, and we know that there have been groups outside the pools and the United Grain Growers, outside of those co‑ops to express concern about the role of the Wheat Board, and there are fishermen who express concern over the role of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.  It is a single‑desk marketing agency that controls in effect the price of the products produced by fishermen large and small throughout the province.

 

          The plant, as my colleague from Transcona (Mr. Reid) has referenced, is in that particular community, employs a lot of people, and by and large has done a good job of stabilizing the income of fishermen.  But there are some shortcomings in that system, and I know that the board of directors of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation are attempting to solve some of those problems.  They are trying to expand their horizons, and they have for some time, at least on paper, been attempting to find markets for a lot of the fish that are being caught across Manitoba, again particularly in northern Manitoba, that are not at this point a marketable commodity.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, there are many in South Indian Lake, including the South Indian Lake fishermen and fishermen in Pukatawagan, people like Matt Sinclair, who have been fishing for almost all of their lives, who understand the fishery intimately.  They also believe and they have in the recent months been in contact with people who have marketing contacts outside of what are traditionally Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation territory.  The Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation does most of its selling in Canada, the United States.  It has some markets in Europe and some small markets in places like Japan.  There are large markets in other parts of Asia, in particular, and perhaps in other parts of Europe that have not been tapped.

 

          What we see happening now is a desire on the part of some fisheries that produce large quantities of fish, in South Indian Lake's case more than a million pounds a year, the same with the Pukatawagan Fisherman's Association who have access to some 1.2 million pounds of quota, who are looking for opportunities on their own.

 

          So, Mr. Acting Speaker, this bill addresses the penalty.  This bill attempts to deal with some of the smaller problems, most people would say, and yet there does not seem to have been any effort on the part of the government or this minister to deal with the larger problem.

 

          I am not sure whether the minister has had an opportunity to meet with the new group, the northwestern fishermen, including the communities of Brochet, South Indian Lake, Pukatawagan, Granville Lake and Nelson House, who have banded together to purchase the formally held fish packing plant by this particular co‑op.

 

          Now they are looking to not only provide packing services for fishermen in the area, but they are also looking at an opportunity to process fish in that facility and they want some help.  Right now there are many times when they are under the impression that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is standing in the way.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, almost a year ago now, I met with a group of Pukatawagan fishermen who had a plan to sell some fish outside of the traditional markets that are sort of assumed by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, and I was struck by the‑‑and I do not want to be harsh here‑‑somewhat paternalistic attitude that the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation had toward this particular project.

 

          We all know that in business and in dealing with the entrepreneurial spirit, it is not always those who have been at it the longest who are the most successful.  Sometimes it takes a bit of initiative.  Sometimes it takes a bit of desire to make something happen.  For the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation to tell these groups that it cannot be done, when they are the producer, they have the know‑how and they want to try, does not make any sense.

 

* (1520)

 

          I am not saying that individual groups should be competing directly with products that are developed by or markets that have been developed by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.  I know that that would be in itself counterproductive, but they should not stand in the way where they have not developed markets, where they do not have well‑defined selling regimes, where they do not have brokers.  There should be some incentive in fact for fishermen to create their own opportunity and that does not always seem to be the case.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, some many years ago now, the government of Saskatchewan introduced amendments to its fisheries act to facilitate that kind of entrepreneurial spirit within the northern community.

 

          I would have thought that if we are going to amend The Fisheries Act, if we are going to spend the time in this Chamber, go through the motion, to simply increase fines as some sort of panacea to our problems, I think we are making a mistake.

 

          As I said, Mr. Acting Speaker, this is not going to work.  It is not going to work because the government is not committed to enforcement.  I know that in every community that I represent, where there are Natural Resources officers, there are fewer today than there were five years ago.

 

          I know that the Natural Resources, the conservation officers, tell me we cannot patrol the lakes in our region.  We cannot do the job in terms of sports angling, and we certainly cannot do the job when it comes to the more remote lakes that are quite often the lakes that are fished commercially.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, we need I think a more aggressive, proactive piece of legislation that deals more generally with the problems that the fishery faces.

 

          I wanted to put something else on the record.  This may offend some of our GRIP recipients, some of the members on the front bench who are the recipients, beneficiaries of the Western Grain Transportation Act.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to put the case to you, and I know that you represent a rural area.  The Province of Manitoba and the federal government‑‑the Province of Manitoba, let us deal with them first, some four and a half years ago decided to cut by one‑third the very meagre subsidy, transportation, freight, transportation subsidy that is provided to fishermen in Manitoba.  That subsidy at that time amounted to some $250,000.  The government chose, in its wisdom, to reduce that by some $60,000 or $80,000.

 

          For northerners, for my community, there are literally hundreds and hundreds of people employed in the fishing industry.  Across Manitoba there are probably thousands.  It is a multimillion‑dollar industry.  I had to read and sort of‑‑I was going to say chuckle.  It is not really amusing.  I know that it is a serious matter and that farmers, grain farmers in particular, face serious problems as well.  It strikes me as rather odd that this year the Western Grain Transportation subsidy is going to be something like $590 million.  That is simply a transportation subsidy.

 

          There is really no systematic support for the fishing industry, for the thousands and thousands of fishermen in the province of Manitoba.  At the same time we know that the government, in a news release not that long ago from Information Services, was boasting about the contribution of some $360 million from both levels of government for the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan.  So we have $590 million in transportation subsidy at the federal level.  We have $370 million of subsidy from the Gross Revenue Insurance Plan.  We have subsidized veterinary services.  We have no‑tax fuel.  Where is the fairness?  If you were a fisherman in northern Manitoba and the government had just cut your meagre little freight rate assistance program, would you not ask yourself, where is the fairness; where is the relative importance being placed; why has the fishing industry not received the kind of support that many other agricultural products and producers have received?

 

          Not that long ago we had a chance to meet with the Keystone Agricultural Producers.  I posed the question to the president of KAP and said that fishermen are no different than any other agricultural producer.  I said, would KAP propose the same kinds of stabilization programs, for example, that farmers enjoy, for fishermen?  He said, well, we have never thought about it.  I do not know if you have thought about it, Mr. Acting Speaker.

 

          If you look in the Department of Agriculture, you have stabilization programs for sugar beets, a stabilization program for honey, a stabilization program for onions, a stabilization program for pork, a stabilization program for beef, millions and millions of dollars.  Why should the fishing industry not receive the same kind of consideration?  Why are northern fishermen in particular ignored?  When was the last time that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger), the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey) sat down with fishermen from Pukatawagan or South Indian Lake or from any of the other of the Island Lake areas or Berens River or Bloodvein?  Mr. Acting Speaker, we have to correct that injustice.

 

          I do not expect that the Minister of Natural Resources in one little bill, Bill 8, is going to be able to correct the kind of inequality we see in agricultural product.  Fishing is just another form of farming.  That is all it is.  Yet because of the historic relationship between western Canada and our national government and the population differences, we are treating our agricultural products quite differently in this province.  Fishermen, quite frankly, are getting the short end of the proverbial stick or, in this case, fishing pole.

 

          So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that it is time that we addressed that problem.  I think that it is time that we took fishing more seriously as an industry.  I would add that most fishermen, including the people in South Indian Lake that I spoke to last week, tell me that the ratio of fish that are supplied to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation‑‑and it is primarily whitefish, pickerel and some jack‑‑but the ratio of marketable fish to rough fish, the fish that is not considered, not deemed of adequate quality for current markets, the ratio is about five to one.  In fact, we are throwing away between three and five pounds of fish for every fish that we attempt to market.

 

          In many countries of the world that would be deemed a tremendous, a horrendous and an unacceptable waste, and I think it should be in our community as well.  I would argue that the government should be doing everything in its power and not leaving it to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation or individual fishermen's associations or individual fishermen to find a way to solve that dilemma.  It is something that we should be working on.

 

          So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I leave it to the Minister of Natural Resources to follow up and perhaps maybe withdraw this bill.  Maybe he should withdraw this bill and perhaps‑‑[interjection] Well, it is simply of little value.  It does not really address the real problems facing fishermen.  The minister might do us all a favour if he withdrew this bill and presented, even next session, a bill that was more comprehensive and tried to deal with the real problems.

 

          If he at that time wants to include some amendments that stiffen the penalties, increase the powers for inspectors and conservation officers, fine, do that.  But if you are going to do that, do that in a consistent way and, at the same time, increase the staff who are going to enforce this.  The member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) often referred to government laws and laws that we pass here that have the potential of being scoffed at, of being ignored, of being unenforceable as scoff laws, that they are laws that we pass in here with all the best of intentions, but there is no hope of them ever being enforced and people are going to look at them and ridicule them.

 

* (1530)

 

          The Department of Natural Resources is dangerously close to being in a position where these kind of amendments, because they are not enforceable and because they do not reveal the real issues, are not going to have the effect and the force that they might otherwise have had.  That belittles the process and the work that we do from time to time in this Chamber.

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):  As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).

 

Bill 4‑‑The Energy and Consequential Amendments Act

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):  Bill 4, second reading of The Energy and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi sur l'énergie et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

 

An Honourable Member:  Stand.

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):  Is there leave that the matter remain standing? [agreed]

 

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I want to talk for a few moments on The Energy and Consequential Amendments Act introduced as Bill 4.

 

          On scrutiny, this appears to be another parenthood and apple pie bill which gives lip service to the concept of sustainable development.  I want to begin by saying that if major changes to environmental stewardship are to occur then there must be some real incentives for business and industry to act and to go as far as is technically and economically feasible.  I believe there is no organization which moves faster than a properly motivated business, and the thing that motivates business best is an impact on its bottom line.

 

          If we are going to look at ways in which we can promote energy conservation, which I believe is implied in this bill, then we must explore the ways in which we can come up with real incentives as opposed to pretend ones.  Over the last 10 to 15 years there have been significant developments in the area of environmental law, and these developments are of concern to business.  What began as one or two pieces of legislation has become a discreet and complex legal specialty.  Accordingly, there is not a comprehensive or coherent legislative or regulatory scheme and this bill, I believe, adds very little to the situation.

 

          We continue to develop a convoluted maze of legislation, regulation policy and guidelines, much of which is difficult to understand even to a legal expert.  Some of the acts and regulations overlap and are applied in a way that is neither predictable nor consistent.  Sufficient to say that those who are active in the areas which may impact on the environment have nearly an impossible task as they attempt to steer their way through the legal responsibilities imposed on them by legislation.

 

          For environmental regulation to be truly meaningful then there must be enforcement and, again, I raise my concern that we continue to add regulation after regulation and act after act with no apparent recognition of the fact that as we do so we also need to add a way of enforcing the regulation.  This regulatory evolution is apparently being accepted as an inevitable development either prompted by those who are responding to environmental activism or those who are wanting to appear to be doing the right thing.  Politicians recognize that we cannot make changes ourselves, but all we can do is go by our stock and trade, which is regulation and legislation, but we continue to do so without assigning the necessary enforcement resources.  So the question is, are there other incentives which can provide a balance for punitive laws and regulations which would in fact provide the impetus that we definitely need for change?

 

          The Canadian public, in poll after poll, continues to be concerned about the state of the environment.  It is interesting that 20 percent of Canadians donate to environmental rights or green groups, and 40 percent of Canadians are reported to make their consumer decisions based on the ecological track record of the company.  There is also no shortage of magic bullets to fly at the problems of waste and pollution.  Technology application is not the problem.  Technology, the willingness or finding the incentive to apply the technology is what we need to concentrate on.

 

          One of the things that we have been talking about in other opportunities‑‑we talked on a resolution on water allocation the other day.  It seems to me that water provides us with an example that we ought to take and examine when we look at energy conservation.  If water is provided to farmers and industries, businesses and households at zero price, users cannot be expected to recognize the value of the resource, the cost of supplying it or the cost of disposing it safely after we use it.  Water is largely regarded as a free good, and users, who lack any financial incentive to economize, tend to use it wastefully.

 

          The same can be said of electricity.  We need to examine our electricity consumption patterns and recognize that there are things that can and need to be done.  We in Canada tend to look at this resource as being freely and infinitely available, and in fact we in Canada operate on that presumption.  A study that was commissioned by the Southam news poll evaluated the environmental performance of seven large G‑7 countries in the world.  It was interesting that France and Japan ranked first; West Germany, Italy and Britain were in the middle; and Canada and the United States shared last place.  Canada is the most wasteful among industrialized nations with respect to the squandering of our resources and the production of waste.

 

          Canada leads the western industrialized world in energy consumption, using 291 gigajoules per person, while the United States uses 280.  France uses 105; Italy, 109; Japan, 110; the U.K., 150; and West Germany, 165, West Germany being the highest among the European nations.  They still use slightly more than half of that of the two North American nations.

 

          So we need to examine what are the real ways in which we can promote energy conservation.  It is true to say that there have been some initiatives, and some of these initiatives have paid off.  We have, for example, seen a payoff from the Power Smart program, and it has had the net effect of reducing energy consumption in Manitoba.  Additionally, we have had some good ideas which came into being to reduce the use of fossil fuel.  For example, we have the methanol supplement given to gasoline now which reduces the consumption of the hydrocarbon portion of the fuel down by about 10 percent.  These are laudable initiatives, but we have yet to see any kind of initiative passed on to the consumer.

 

          I have a Mohawk fleet card and only put Mohawk gasoline in my vehicle, but I still pay the same price at the pump for my gasoline as I would if I were buying 100 percent hydrocarbon fuel.  What concerns me here is we have given a tax break to the company to produce the fuel, but the tax break does not show up at the pump.  So we need to do more than simply pass acts and regulations to change the patterns of the energy‑consuming public.

 

          I think that we have to begin by recognizing that we have to recognize our situation for what it is.  We have no right to claim to be much cleaner than any of the Asian or European nations.  What saves us is we have a larger land mass, smaller population base and relatively cheap resources which allow us to continue to squander and pollute with impunity but without the more drastic and observable consequences that are evident in Japan and Europe.

 

          The countries that waste the least are less environmentally damaging than those who are more wasteful.  So we need to acknowledge and take our rightful place as destroyer of the planet.

 

* (1540)

 

          Going back to the act before us, what are the kinds of things that are present in this act that would in fact make a difference?  Well, there are penalties, again, penalties for violations of $10,000 for individuals and $25,000 for corporations.  But we continue to hear from the enforcement of other acts and regulations that it is not simply worth the expenditure of money to pursue these acts and regulations through the courts and insist on compliance.

 

          The fear that I have is that again this is one more window dressing activity and that it points to us as interested in sustainable development but doing very little.  It just appears that this is one more activity for window dressing.  I think what troubles me most is, in fact, it does weaken the regulatory approach when we continue to put on the books acts and regulations that we have no resources or will to enforce.  So we have to examine whether or not the energy, pardon the pun, expended in developing and putting this additional regulatory framework into place, is going to give us the payback that we are expecting.

 

          There are many useful activities which could be pursued, and I would commend the members to some of the efficiency energy conservation activities that were contained in the red book, which is so continually maligned in this House, but it in fact set out a number of very important and positive steps which could be put into place to have the desired effect of changing consumer consumption patterns.  Perhaps the one thing that we could be looking to is some examination of our hydro rate structure.  At this point in time we do not have a rate structure which benefits those people who are energy efficient.  You do not pay more for the first amount of energy you use and less for the last one.  That is an initiative which would in fact promote energy conservation.

 

          There are other kinds of things that could be put forward.  The public education, as I say, has had some net benefit, but we could be seeking other kinds of activities which could be energy conserving.  For example, I note that in this building the lights all over the place remain on long after people are here to occupy the offices.  We could be doing‑‑[interjection] I have no windows, so you could not see from outside whether my light is on.  I do believe that there are many, many things that we, as regulators and legislators, could be doing which in fact would have a net benefit of making a bigger impact.

 

          In concluding my remarks today, I think it is important that we continue to act in ways that we can set a good example, ways in which we can focus less on regulatory initiative and more on coming up with good ideas for change.  We also must continue to establish the context within which we operate.  We must recognize that we have to see the big picture and not be bamboozled into accepting some‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  Bamboozled, is that parliamentary?

 

Ms. McCormick:  I will wait for the Speaker's Ruling on that if you would like and apologize if bamboozled is unparliamentary.

 

An Honourable Member:  Oh, I think it is parliamentary.

 

Ms. McCormick:  It is parliamentary.  Okay, thank you.

 

          We have to find ways in which we can do the more meaningful things.  So again these remarks are intended to go on record as being committed to the concept of sustainable development, but to question the ways in which this Energy and Consequential Amendments Act moves us any closer to having the desired outcome.

 

          The act calls for the preparation of an Energy Manitoba report within two years of it coming into force.  When I got elected, I began to look at some of the reports that are coming available and find that many of the reports which are mandated in various statutes and regulations are not produced on a regular basis.  Again, it does the same thing‑‑

 

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment):  Not true.

 

Ms. McCormick:  The Minister of Environment says, not true.  I am still waiting for anything newer than the 1990 report on the air quality section from his own department which he has said, it is coming.  In fact, the last time we had a conversation it was coming soon, so I quite look forward to it.

 

          Again, what I am suggesting here is that what we have to do is, in addition to putting forth the regulatory and legislative words, we have to commit both by our actions and by the resources assigned to the departments to deliver not just the spirit of the regulation, but the action which is presumably called for.

 

An Honourable Member:  Oh, I think the spirit is every bit as important.

 

Ms. McCormick:  Thank you for that support.

 

          Despite the legislation then, we have to figure out ways in which we can support the intent with some things that the public and the corporate community can act on.

 

          So I thank you for the opportunity to participate.

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):  As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

 

Bill 9‑‑The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rose):  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), Bill 9, The Convention Centre Corporation Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Corporation du Centre des congrés), standing in the name of the honourable member for Inkster.

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  Mr. Acting Speaker, it is with pleasure that I can put a few words on the record with respect to Bill 9.  The bill in itself appears to be somewhat noncontroversial in my reading of it, and I have had the opportunity to have a discussion with a couple of other individuals with respect to it.

 

          I do understand that back in 1972 there were short‑term banking arrangements in which there was a cap of approximately $100,000 that was put into place.  This bill seeks to increase that from $100,000 to $250,000.

 

          The second portion of the bill really deals with the size of the board, and it wants to increase it from the 13 to 15.  As I indicated, Mr. Acting Speaker, we do not have too much of a problem in supporting both of those aspects of this particular bill.

 

          I did want to comment, however, somewhat briefly, Mr. Acting Speaker, on the make‑up of the board of the Winnipeg Convention Centre.  I think that one of the things that we always have to be cognizant of is when we do have boards that the boards themselves, if at all possible, try to reflect the general demographics of the province of Manitoba.  Competence, no doubt, has to be at the forefront, but I do believe that we will find that competence can be sought out and found through the many different communities that are out there.  There are virtually endless benefits by trying to at least strive at getting our boards, and in particular the Convention Centre Corporation board, because it brings so much to the province and in particular to the city of Winnipeg.  The broader the base of representation of that board, the better off I personally believe that it would be.

 

          Having said those few words, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are quite prepared to pass it on to committee.

 

(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

 

* (1550)

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? [agreed]

 

Bill 3‑‑The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la Fondation de traitement du cancer et de recherche en cancérologie, standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona.

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act.

 

          I am sure that many of us have been affected in one way or another by cancer, whether it be family members or friends or maybe even some of us, unknown to others, have even encountered personally and had dealings with the disease of cancer.  It is one of those diseases of life that is very shocking.  I am sure that when we learn that either family or friends have encountered or contracted the disease, it can place a great deal of strain upon the family and friends when it is learned that someone who is very near and dear to them has been diagnosed as having cancer.

 

          I have had experiences in my own personal life, Mr. Acting Speaker, where I have had‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  Tell us about them.

 

Mr. Reid:  I am going to tell the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) about it, because I think not only is this bill important for what its purported intent is, which I believe we support, and I will get to the bill more directly in a moment on why we support the changes of this legislation.

 

          With respect to people in my own personal life who have been affected, I know a number of years ago I had close personal friends that when we were in our 20s we thought our time would never end and that we would live on forever and we would never be struck down by the diseases of life or we would never in any way see our life end as we would grow old through the natural aging process.

 

          That changed for me in my very early 20s when a close personal friend of mine, whom I was residing with at the time, encountered cancer through events in his own personal life that we believe led to the development of the disease.  I remember on many occasions going to the home of the family of my friend after he found out and the strong and very severe emotional times that the family went through when we were talking about the disease and its impact upon the individual and the family.  It was a very difficult and very traumatic experience.

 

          I can also remember times when I would take my friend to the hospital for his cancer treatments and seeing the many people who were in the treatment centre at the time and looking at the effects of the so‑called, hopefully, cures for the disease, whether it be chemotherapy or radiation treatment.

 

          Of course, being a young person at that time, I never had the opportunity to see or witness personally that type of treatment and I was shocked to see some of the effects that took place where individuals would lose their hair and their skin colour would change, their pallor would change.  There were all kinds of difficulties they encountered, whether it be nausea, et cetera.

 

          I know in taking my friend to the treatments within the Health Sciences Centre and seeing personally the effects upon him, it was a very shocking experience.  It was very hard emotionally to see people who were very near and dear to you undergo such a treatment and, of course, to see their lives essentially disappear before your very eyes.  That particular individual, unfortunately, passed on a number of years ago.

 

          I know, in talking with family members on many occasions since, they were quite thankful that not only was the family able to spend some quality time with the individual, but also that friends were around and were available and were in a sense attempting to comfort the person who was stricken with cancer.

 

          Other members I know of in my own community‑‑they were close personal friends‑‑have gone through cancer treatments.  Some of them have survived even till today and are still living normal, healthy lives.  I also have members of my own family who are currently undergoing cancer treatments for some very severe forms of cancer.

 

          One particular case, one of my aunts, is now going through cancer treatment for a growth that has surrounded her spine in the neck area.  That is causing immense personal problems as she tries to lead a normal life while she is going through the treatments.  We are not sure of what the long‑term prognosis is, but we are hopeful at this point.

 

          I have also had a chance, Mr. Acting Speaker, to read through the intent of this piece of legislation and to think of some of the fine work that is being done by the Cancer Treatment Foundation as they attempt to forward the work that is done by way of cancer treatment and research.  The foundation does fundraising activities and tries to make sure that there are essential funds necessary for those who are doing the treatment and research so that we can hopefully one day find a cure for cancer.

 

          It is from my understanding, and I have read the minister's comments relating to this piece of legislation, that the original Cancer Treatment Foundation Act was proclaimed in 1962.  So it has been some 22 years that this legislation has been in place.

 

          I guess, in that sense, it would be appropriate at this time that we look at making some changes to the structure of the board itself and to the ability of the board to undertake certain borrowing activities relating to the necessary ongoing work of the board itself.

 

          It is my understanding, in looking at the new legislation, Bill 3 is attempting to make changes to the structure of the membership of the foundation itself, and they are going to be changing the structure of the new foundation board from 18 to 22 members.  So we are going to see a four‑member increase on the new board itself.

 

          It is my understanding that there is going to be, with those changes‑‑currently in place we have one designated member from the Health Sciences Centre currently sitting on the Cancer Treatment Foundation Board.  I sense that the minister wants to move this legislation forward in a sense to make it more democratic in that it would represent various interests of the community and others in the province.  The new legislation now is going to call for the further designation of members from other health care facilities within the city of Winnipeg, namely that being St. Boniface General Hospital which itself has a cancer treatment centre.

 

          It is also my understanding that the University of Manitoba is going to have a designated member on the new foundation board itself.  So we are adding people from facilities that obviously have extensive experience in dealing with cancer and its treatment and research.  I think that is a good move in itself that we are going to bring people in from those facilities in a designated capacity.

 

          The bill also looks at requiring the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) now to appoint 10 people as members of the foundation.  This legislation is going to allow the minister to appoint these people.  It is going to call for the appointment of these people from various parts of the province so that we have, generally, a broad‑based representation from the various parts of Manitoba.  We all know cancer knows no boundaries, and of course there are people in various communities throughout our province who have been impacted in some way by the cancer disease.  It is a good move that we are going to have people coming from all parts of Manitoba to sit on the new board.

 

          It is also my understanding now that there are going to be seven other members appointed by the foundation itself that will pull in specific expertise, as they see necessary, to advise and to direct in a way that would lead the board to take proper steps for the further direction that is necessary in the furthering of their efforts.  That is a good move.  I think the board, any body, I do not care whether it is government or a foundation that is doing fundraising for treatment and research, I think we should have specific expertise available to us there.  Not all of us have experiences of life that would allow us to have that expertise, and I think we should rely on others who do to guide us through our deliberations and to give us, hopefully, the right information that will allow us to make the correct decisions.

 

* (1600)

 

          The legislation itself also calls for the election of a chairperson by the new foundation members.  Since there are going to be 22 members, they are going to be able to select one of their people as a chairperson.  It is my understanding that the current chairperson of the board is now appointed by the Premier (Mr. Filmon).  With that, it takes away some of the democratic abilities of the board itself to pick or choose the person they think is most suitable to be the chairperson from within the members of the board itself.  I think, in a sense of a democratic move, this is the way to go, to allow the board members to appoint their own chairperson instead of it being done by the Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council, who is the Premier.

 

          It is my understanding that there are some current restrictions on the borrowing limits that have been set for the foundation.  The current act sets the limits at some $300,000 when that was set.  I believe it was in 1962 when the act was proclaimed.  It probably was an appropriate amount of money at that time, but in the 22 years that have passed since that, obviously that $300,000 borrowing ability has been eroded by inflation and is obviously creating some hardships for the foundation itself as it attempts to perform its duties.

 

          The foundation has embarked upon a major capital redevelopment to enable it to continue to serve the needs of Manitobans.  The borrowing cap will be removed, from my understanding, to allow the foundation to facilitate further capital expenditures that would be necessary to give the foundation borrowing powers that would be similar to other organizations where I believe they would be statutory.

 

          There are other areas‑‑I know the foundation does good work for us.  We, after having looked at this piece of legislation, think that this is a good move on the part of the government, the bill that we feel we can support, although we would like to hear from other members of the community that may wish to come forward to add their comments.  I know when this piece of legislation moves through to committee we hope that members of the public, including members of the foundation or others that would be within the health care system or the general public at large, would take advantage of the opportunity to talk about how the foundation's work has maybe affected their lives and give us some insight as well on the activities of the foundation.

 

          I know we have had many discussions in this House over the last number of months and going back to even last year.  Since cancer treatment and research is an ongoing part of the health care system of our province, and I made reference to the fact of some of the facilities that do treatment and research.  I am sure we all hope we never have to utilize in any way any of the health care facilities or the hospitals that we have within our province, but we hope that they will be there to make sure that we have the necessary treatments, the necessary medical expertise should we ever need to have any treatment for medical ailments.

 

          I know my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has many times in this House raised health care issues, whether it be the Connie Curran contract that was signed by the government for $4 million U.S. tax free, I think it was, a huge amount, Mr. Acting Speaker‑‑yes, my colleagues in the House here said they wished they could earn that kind of money.  I am sure there are other members of our society too who wish they could make $4 million, and I see members opposite smiling, and maybe some of them are making $4 million a year, I am not quite sure, but I will let them stand up.

 

An Honourable Member:  Not any more.

 

Mr. Reid:  The member for Portage la Prairie says that he no longer makes $4 million a year, so I guess he has had to somewhat lower his standards, cut back a little bit to fall in line with his government's philosophy of cutbacks, so I guess he has cut back his‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  He is buying a piece of the Jets.

 

Mr. Reid:  Maybe he is buying a piece of the Jets with his money.  Maybe he is investing it into the Jets, which will obviously save the taxpayers of this province having to spend tax dollars to support the Jets.  I know my‑‑[interjection]

 

Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  Could I ask those honourable members speaking from the loge to go out in the hall and do so, so we can carry on with this fruitful debate.

 

Mr. Reid:  Mr. Acting Speaker, I appreciate that, to quiet the members opposite to give me a chance to add my comments on this legislation.

 

          To get back to the discussion that was taking place about the government's involvement of $43.5 million into the Jets by way of potential losses that the Jets might incur, I know, in talking with many members of my constituency when I have gone door knocking, I have found that at least 80 percent of the people I encounter, and possibly more, were opposed to any tax dollars going into the Jets.  That is what the comments from the people of my community are saying.

 

An Honourable Member:  Especially if you told them it was going to cost them 40 million.

 

Mr. Reid:  No, I must admit that the Minister of Environment is wrong.  That figure had not been released.  The residents of my community did not even know what the potential losses were going to be.  They did not know that they were going to be $43.5 million.  Now that they know, I am sure that they are most likely to be even more upset that there is a potential for such a huge investment from the taxpayers' purse into the Jets themselves.

 

          The question I have always asked of my constituents is‑‑

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau):  Order, please.  I would like to remind the honourable member that we are dealing with Bill 3, and I am sure the honourable member was just about to get back to the issue of the treatment and research foundation.

 

Mr. Reid:  Mr. Acting Speaker, you are right, I was just about to get back to Bill 3, to talk about the importance of The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act changes that the government has brought in and some of the impacts that have happened in our health care system in the province.

 

          I have referenced some of the comments and some of the questions my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has raised many times in this House, either by way of his speeches or in Question Period, relating to our health care system and the direction this government has taken health care, whether it be through this legislation of Bill 3 or by way of Connie Curran's contract when she came in, signed a $4‑million U.S. tax‑free consulting contract and then went back, never met the requirements of the contract, and it is creating some problems within our hospitals and within our community as well.

 

          I have talked with many people, even in my own community, about the direction the government has taken with respect to Connie Curran.  They think it was the wrong move that this government made.  We have enough expert advice within our country.  We could have brought somebody from within our own country to advise or to consult in these matters, someone who is familiar with the Manitoba and Canadian health care systems and could have led us in a direction that would have been probably a lot more appropriate than what we saw by way of Connie Curran's recommendations.

 

          We would not have lost the LPNs through our health care system.  We probably would not have lost the hospital beds through closures.  We probably would not have seen the reductions in the home care services and the huge increases in the fees.

 

          We have seen many changes through recommendations that Connie Curran has brought in, and a lot of them have been negative in their consequences, not only for people of my community of Transcona but, I am sure, for every community in the province.

 

          This bill, by way of the changes of the board, will allow the board to bring in seven new members by way of appointment from the foundation members themselves.  I believe that there will probably be some doctors who will be appointed for that board who will sit in as experts to advise, and so the board may be able to consult with these doctors.

 

          But I think back, Mr. Acting Speaker, to the time just recently when the government signed its new sweetheart deal, the five‑year agreement with the doctors.  That created some problems even for some of the people in my community and in particular some of the young people in my community who were currently going to the various universities training to be doctors.  They were quite hopeful while they were training to be doctors that they would be able to complete their education, and that they would be able to move out into their professions and to provide good service to the residents of Manitoba.

 

          Unfortunately, during the course of their education, this government came along and it introduced a contract that it had signed with the doctors of the province that essentially changed the rules of the game in the middle of the game, Mr. Acting Speaker.  What they have done is‑‑it is creating a hardship for the young people of my community, because they were hopeful that they might be able to sit on some of these boards that are sitting in Winnipeg, whether it be the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation board, as experts to advise and to consult with the foundation.  Now they are going to be forced into the rural areas of the province, and they are not going to have the same opportunities that would have been afforded to them if there had been other programs that the government had put in place by way of incentives, say.

 

          I have talked to young people.  I have several in my community who are in the third‑ and fourth‑year of medical school.  They came to the Legislature here to meet with us.  What they were telling us is that they very much want to continue their education as doctors, and they very much want to go into the rural centres to serve the people of Manitoba because they see that there are opportunities there.  But they also want to have the opportunities to have incentives in‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  One hundred percent subsidized post‑secondary education.

 

Mr. Reid:  No, they do not want to have subsidized post‑secondary education.  That is not what they want contrary to what the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) thinks.

 

* (1610)

 

          Well, what I am relating to the members opposite, including the member for Portage la Prairie, is that these young people who are training to be doctors in the province want to have the opportunity to serve the people of Manitoba in their chosen profession, but what they want to have the opportunity to do is to be able to train in the years after they have completed their formal education.  They currently do not have that.  Being forced into these areas, there are no programs there.  There are no incentives for them.  They do not have any pension plans.  They have no vacations and no opportunity to come out and retrain, and they have no relief for the jobs while they are performing them in the rural communities, something that is very critical to them.

 

          Because let us face it, in the rural areas, if you are sick in the middle of the night, you do not have a hospital to go to in all cases.  You have your local community doctor hopefully that you can go to and that doctor is essentially on call 24 hours a day‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  It is hard work.

 

Mr. Reid:  It is hard work, and I know members opposite can even‑‑and I am not saying that the two are related, but if the members opposite can think to some of the experiences that they might have had with veterinary services where the veterinarians are on call 24 hours a day and how difficult those lives are.  Because I know one of my neighbours is a veterinarian and had served in rural Manitoba for about 10 or 12 years, he was explaining to me one day the impact upon his family life that it meant to serve the rural communities and how important it was to the communities.

 

(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)

 

          These young doctors are going to, in much the same way, have to perform the same services to the rural communities, and they are going to be on call 24 hours a day.  They want the opportunity to have some relief so they can come out and retrain.  They want to have some opportunities so they can have a quality of life with their families, and they also want to have the opportunities so that they do not have to be on call 24 hours a day.  So there needs to be some relief there for them.

 

          So if you had put incentive programs in place for these young people, not change the rules in the middle of the game, then I am sure they would have been content to follow along with the government's wishes and go out and perform the necessary medical services for the various communities.

 

          The comments that I have just placed on the record, Mr. Acting Speaker, were comments that were related to me by the young people who came to this building to meet with us.  As my colleague the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) has said, democracy, and indeed it should have been, but of course the government chose to impose this deal upon these young people.  At the same time when they signed this five‑year agreement with the doctors, it has effectively tied the hands of any future governments from having to deal with matters relating to the health care system, which is something that from my way of thinking, bears studying because of the long‑term consequences that are involved here.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, these young people very much want to serve on the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation boards.  They were hopeful that they could have had the opportunity, and possibly, they will sometime in the future have that opportunity.  I look forward to this piece of legislation going to the committee so that members of the public will have the opportunity to come out and tell us what their concerns are, any thoughts they have about this legislation or indeed any other concerns that they might have with respect to health care itself.  So we look forward to this piece of legislation going to committee and members of the public coming out.

 

          With those words, Mr. Acting Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to stand up and comment on Bill 3.

 

Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I am pleased to rise and put a few comments on the record in regard to this bill.  This bill basically makes some legislative changes to the workings of the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.

 

          First I would like to say that, of course, it is very, very important that when we are looking at the health care system, whether it is in Manitoba or any province of this country, that in fact it is necessary to not only involve initiatives and leaderships from the government of the day but, of course, to involve our nonprofit organizations and private industry as well when we are looking at the entire system of health care.

 

          Certainly, the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has been a very integral organization in regard to the future of our health care here in this province.  The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation has done excellent work in the area of cancer research.  It certainly will continue to do that work.

 

          As we look at the amendments to this particular piece of legislation, I think we are seeing some improvements in terms of the opportunities for this foundation to do the work of cancer research and treatment.

 

          We see that in some of the amendments, Mr. Acting Speaker, we are now moving from a board of 18 members to some 22 members.  I think at some point there is an optimum number of members that one can have on a board for them to be effective.  I know that some of the literature will suggest that once you move beyond 24 board members it gets somewhat unwieldy, but this is a move from 18 to 22.  I think the move or the expansion of that is so that in fact there can be an expansion of the kinds of representation that we have on this particular foundation.

 

          We see now that the St. Boniface Hospital has the opportunity to have a person appointed to this board, and that there will be an appointment as well from the University of Manitoba from their board of governors.  I think that is important as well, Mr. Acting Speaker, because of the close relationship between research that goes on in the area of cancer research and some of that research which is out at the University of Manitoba.

 

          We have also seen, in this particular bill, some changes in regard to really a better representation of the individuals who will sit on this particular board, and with the appointments of individuals who will represent a number of geographical areas in the province, that also would suggest in fact that we will have a better representation of the individuals.

 

          I would hope that in the appointment of these particular individuals the government of the day and the minister will not simply look to individuals in those communities, which happen to be known by that particular party, but in fact will look towards individuals who are well known within the communities, who are well known in the area of perhaps health, who may be health professionals, who may be volunteers in the community, who are very well known, and that we would really see a very broad representation on this committee.

 

          I think it would be very important as well, Mr. Acting Speaker, that we see some aboriginal representation on this committee, as well as looking at a balance of gender when we look at the appointments.  So I would hope that the minister would take into consideration these comments as well, which are not necessarily reflected in the amendments in this particular bill, but which the minister would have discretion and the opportunity to look at.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, this bill of course as well, as we have seen of bills and amendments to bills presented in this particular legislative session, the government of the day has moved to look at more gender‑neutral language in their legislation and, again, we see that reflected in this particular bill, and that is appropriate as well, and we are pleased to see that.

 

          One of the other major changes that this bill seems to reflect is that there is a change to the borrowing limits of the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.  I believe that when this legislation was enacted in 1962, at that time there was a borrowing limit of some $300,000.  The 1960s were a very long time ago and we are now in the '90s, and so what we are seeing here is a repeal of that particular section so that there is not a borrowing limit to the abilities of the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.

 

          That gives this organization an opportunity to raise as many dollars as possible in the area of treatment and research.  I note, however, that there seems to be some monitoring in place, of course, through the auspices of the Ministry of Finance.  That is appropriate and we support that.

 

* (1620)

 

          I would be very interested, Mr. Acting Speaker, as we get into the committee stage with this particular bill, to hear from members of the community not just simply as to what their thoughts are on the particular sections of this bill, but I would also be very interested in hearing from the community as to how they see the representation of this particular foundation, how they see that occurring, how they see that representation in terms of ensuring that this board, because cancer is a disease that can affect all of us and spares none of us in terms of socioeconomic status, race, gender, et cetera, would be very representative of our community at large.  If members of the community at committee level have some suggestions to the minister as to how this can be done in the appointments, we would look forward to that information.

 

          I want to keep my remarks brief.  I know that we will have an opportunity at the committee level to again go through this piece of legislation clause by clause; we will have an opportunity to hear from the community and possibly from the foundation themselves in regard to this particular bill, and we as a caucus certainly support the speedy passage of this bill to the committee stage.

 

          Thank you.

 

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I am also pleased to rise to add a few remarks to the discussion on Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act.  This is a very short bill which makes a number of changes to the board and to the appointment of chairperson, terms of office and to the ability of the Minister of Finance to raise additional funds for this particular research and treatment board.

 

          In changing the basis of representation on this board and the membership of the board, I understand that the government's intent is in fact to broaden the basis of the board, particularly in the appointment of 10 persons from separate geographical areas of Manitoba.  It also tries to broaden the basis of representation by institutions ensuring that there will be one person appointed from the Health Sciences Centre, the board of the St. Boniface General Hospital and the Board of Governors at the University of Manitoba.  It also provides for seven people to be appointed by the foundation itself, and in effect, that actually makes almost half the board self‑appointing, which is rather a large proportion but I gather is an expansion or an extension of what has been there before.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, it seems to me that there are some useful elements in this bill, and I look forward to the discussion at committee from the institutions that are involved.  In particular, I think the broadening of the basis of representation is an interesting area.  I am curious about the 10 geographical areas of Manitoba.  Normally we do not speak in terms of 10 geographical areas of Manitoba.  We speak in terms of the administrative districts of certain departments of government, where we have northern Manitoba, Westman, Eastman and the Winnipeg region.

 

          So I am curious as to what 10 geographical regions the minister is suggesting here.  Are these 10 regions to be determined each time an appointment is made?  Are there 10 regions which are to be specified, or does it simply mean 10 people who do not all come from the same region?  Does it simply mean that there must be 10 people from a diversity of regions?  I think there is some clarification which we might be able to achieve there in discussion with the minister at committee.

 

          I think also that there are some opportunities here for the research community and for the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) to broaden the basis of representation and activity in the setting of health policy and the setting of research policy in particular, and to broaden it to include, I believe, more women than have been included in the past.  I certainly accept the points that the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and also the member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) have made in this area.  The member for Transcona spoke of the ability to represent youth, particularly young people working in the medical system.  The member for Crescentwood spoke of the desirability of appointing people, aboriginal people in particular, who have not in the past been part of the medical research establishment.  I think both of those are very important.

 

          Of course, much has been written in both United States and Canada in recent years about the very limited role which women have played in medical research and in the setting of medical policy, an unusual, well, perhaps not unusual, but certainly a striking omission when we look at the 95 percent of people employed in health industries who are in fact women, not just as nurses but as technicians and throughout a wide area of hospital and health care facilities.  So the broadening of the gender basis, I think, is possible here with the expansion of the numbers of people involved in the setting of policy in this particular board.

 

          There are, I think, areas particularly in cancer which are a specific interest to women.  Obviously, breast cancer and uterine cancer are ones that we are seeing increases in, and we are not really‑‑particularly in the area of breast cancer there has been very little improvement in the treatment of breast cancer over the last 20 years in spite of the fact that some money has gone into foundations such as this and into other research foundations throughout the world in fact, that the incidence of breast cancer, particularly in the industrial world, is expanding.  The success of treatment has not been making corresponding increases in the same way as perhaps the treatment of other diseases.  There is great concern in the circles, not just of women but of their families, and particularly I think in some very serious statistics that we do find in particular parts and particular regions of Canada.

 

          There are a number of ways here, opportunities in this bill for expanding the role of women in the Cancer Foundation, both in the terms of setting of policy but also in the opportunity to use the Cancer Foundation for public education.  Obviously, the Cancer Society itself does a great deal of this as well, but I believe the linking of research and public information is an important area.

 

          In the last 10 years or even in the last five years, we have seen some very serious undermining of medical research, particularly in the cancer area.  The use of Tamoxifen, the dispute over the recommendations about mammography and falsification of findings by some senior medical researchers in North America, I think have given great concern to women about the role of research and the public information which is available to them.

 

          I would suggest there is an opportunity in this bill to broaden the bases of representation and to broaden the concerns to better serve the public of Manitoba.

 

          I would also say, Mr. Acting Speaker, that there is an opportunity here for the government and for the people who are appointed subsequently to this board to take note of the critiques which are being developed about that link between research and public service or public information and particularly in the area of cancer research.

 

          One of obvious critiques which is frequently made is that much of medical research is driven by research grants.  Of course, this foundation will be no different.  In fact, it expands the independence of the research foundation from government, and it is a fundraising foundation to some extent, in fact, to a large extent.  The drive to depend upon research grants rather than on public funding of research has certainly been seen by many public commentators in recent years to distort to some degree the kind of research which is conducted.

 

          Now that is just not true obviously of cancer research.  It destroys many areas of research, but one of the areas I think that people feel has been very seriously overlooked by many cancer researchers is the area of environmental hazards, and that is a very serious area of public policy and one which I draw to the government's attention.

 

          When you are research‑grant driven, the opportunity to do the long‑term research on environmental hazards, for example, the role of DDT in the formation of uterine and breast cancer is one that the links have been drawn constantly, but the long‑term research has not been there.  It has become much more prefer‑‑not much more preferable but certainly more common for research which is funded by drug companies for example, to use drug‑based research.  The Tamoxifen issue I think is one of those and for research which is driven by dependence upon private funding to become very much oriented toward a high‑tech solution, toward machinery, toward equipment, toward the use of drugs.

 

          The longer‑term issues and the public policy issues of the use of insecticides, the use of DDT, the use of the general environmental issues which we are facing across North America are ones that we certainly want to see as part of the research activities of any cancer research foundation.

 

* (1630)

 

          I think, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is really all I have to say.  I have perhaps some comments I would have liked to have added if there had been a little longer and that is to relate the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to the absence of a research policy by this government.  It was something which I did suggest to the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) several times during our Estimates in dealing with post‑secondary education and asked him to discuss and gave him a series of opportunities in fact to suggest what the research policy was of this government.

 

          This kind of a bill, I think, does lend itself to establishing some general principles about public policy and research, particularly in the area of cancer research, and also for the government to perhaps speak more generally on the role of research in Manitoba.  There are substantial changes happening across the country.  There are severe national reductions in research funding across the country.  We have seen that over the last 10 years and that does not seem to be changing at the moment.  There are proposals for a shift in the funding of research from the provincial and federal governments which are coming from independent agencies such as The Royal Society of Canada.

 

          I think every university across the country is finding the funding of its laboratories, the funding of its researchers on a long‑term basis extremely difficult.  I would have welcomed, again, some indication from the government of where this particular foundation fits with it research policies for St. Boniface Hospital, for the Health Sciences Foundation, for other research that may or may not be conducted in other hospitals or indeed the technological aspects of research which we should be developing in our community colleges.

 

          Perhaps if the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) does speak at some point on this bill, and perhaps he has spoken, I am not sure that he has, that that opportunity is again open to him.

 

          I think further, too, for the government there is an opportunity in bills of this nature to also link research with economic innovation.  I know that there are some individuals who are advisers to the Cancer Research Foundation who certainly are linked with the Economic Innovation Council, but although the government does claim to have the health research and health industries as one area of its economic development program, there are very few linkages that we do see in practice that are happening in this area.

 

          It is possible that the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and the linking of this to St. Boniface Hospital and the University of Manitoba indeed is part of the beginning of a broader strategy.  If so, I would like to know about it, and I think the public of Manitoba would certainly be well‑served by creating the focuses for research in Manitoba and defining them and funding them and making sure in fact that they are linked to the economic strategies of the province as well.

 

          So with those, Mr. Acting Speaker, I look forward to the discussion at committee.

 

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act, and I am pleased to say that the Cancer Foundation is located in the constituency of Burrows.  It happens to be in the Health Sciences complex and the boundary runs on Sherbrook Street and west of Sherbrook.  All of the Health Sciences buildings are in my constituency, although I cannot say I have ever been to the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation.  I hope that if I do, I only go there as a visitor, not as a patient.  But all of us, I think, are grateful that in our city we have this treatment facility and research foundation so that for those people who do need it, it is there.

 

          The main features of this minor amendment bill are to expand the membership of the foundation from 18 to 22 and to designate representatives from St. Boniface Hospital and the University of Manitoba.  I think it is good to expand the membership to include other important hospitals in our city.

 

          It also requires the minister to appoint 10 persons as members of the foundation from separate geographical regions of the province, and I think that is a good idea.

 

          I read from time to time the alumni magazine from the University of Saskatchewan, and that is how their senate is organized.  They have senate elections based on geographic regions in the province of Saskatchewan, which is appropriate for a number of reasons.  One is that it is a provincial university so it is only fair that the whole province be represented, and also their students are from the whole province so it is only fair that the student body and the alumni be represented by geographic regions on the senate.

 

          That would be a good way to organize many institutions in our society so that the representation is broad.  So I think we can commend the government for broadening the geographical representation to this board by including representatives from all geographical regions of Manitoba.

 

          Many times we in this House, particularly those of us who are urban members are accused of having Perimeteritis and not being able to see beyond the Perimeter Highway.  It is good from time to time to travel around the province to get a broader picture, and I hope that is what will happen with having representatives from across the province on the foundation board of directors.

 

          Seven other persons will be appointed by the foundation who will be selected for the specific expertise that is needed.  It is good that the foundation has that kind of latitude that they can pick people in the community, whether it is researchers or whoever it is that they choose because of their expertise, to be on the foundation board.

 

          Another change is that the chairperson will be elected by the foundation members rather than appointed by Lieutenant‑Governor‑in‑Council, which means, I guess, that there is one less political patronage appointment in Manitoba after this passes.  I think that is good.  A research foundation like the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation should be nonpolitical.  There is no reason why there needs to be a government appointment of the chairperson.  I personally think it is more appropriate that they choose their own chairperson.

 

          In the past, there was a restriction on borrowing for the foundation.  The current act sets a limit of $300,000.  This has been changed so that the foundation has more extensive borrowing foundations, which presumably better meet its needs.

 

          The foundation is quite involved with fundraising in order to carry out its activities.  Of course, it probably acts like most foundations in that the capital it raises is invested and only the interest on the money is spent on research.  That way the amount of money in their investment portfolio increases and the amount of money that normally they would be able to spend from the interest increases as well, although many foundations are having problems because of low interest rates.  For example, The Law Foundation has suffered greatly from low interest rates, and we hope that does not happen to the Cancer Foundation.

 

* (1640)

 

          It has an effect on the funding ability of any organization, but it would be particularly unfortunate if the interest on investments from the Cancer Foundation were decreased because of lower interest rates and therefore they were not able to do as much research because all of us here, and I think everyone in society, are very concerned about cancer as a disease and wanting to find cures or wanting to find medication that will ameliorate the effects of cancer and increase people's longevity.  So it is very important that research continues, particularly to find a cure for cancer.

 

          I do not have scientific studies with me today, but I think there is evidence that at least some kinds of cancer are increasing in our society.  All we have to do is pick up the newspapers and we read articles that concern us.  For example, in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 18, 1994, there is a headline that says:  Study links antihistamines to growth of cancer in mice.  Then a story on May 18, the same day, by the science reporter, says:  Cancer findings not duplicated, linked with antihistamines challenge.

 

          Well, in our family we happen to have a son who has allergies, and he takes antihistamines from time to time, so when you pick up the newspaper and you read that antihistamines have been linked to the growth of cancer in mice, well, of course, it causes concerns.  You wonder whether you are doing the best thing for your child or not.  So, of course, we rely on organizations like the Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to do research into areas like this so that we are not prescribing inappropriate pharmaceuticals to people that need them.

 

          I have a couple of articles on research grants that the Cancer Research Foundation has made from the Winnipeg Free Press of April 6, 1994, the headline is:  Cancer research boosted.  The story says that two Winnipeg researchers received more than a hundred thousand dollars from the Canadian Cancer Society to study ways to improve communication between cancer patients and their doctors.  It goes on to say that Dr. Harvey Chochinov, a psychiatrist with the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, received $66,000 from the Cancer Society to test a questionnaire that measures daily changes in cancer patients' symptoms.  Chochinov and his team will study whether the information leads to better medical treatment.  Of course, we are pleased to see that studies like that are being funded so that, indeed, hopefully, the end result is better treatment.

 

          Here is another story from the Winnipeg Free Press from November 26, 1993.  The headline is:  Cancer fight goes to factories.  A very interesting program, it says, a made‑in‑Winnipeg program to educate immigrant factory workers about breast cancer is reaching 3,500 local women on the job and catching on in clothing companies across Canada.  Basically, the gist of the story is that they wanted to get information to women who are at risk, and they believed, if they invited them to come to a hotel for a seminar, that they would not come for cultural and other reasons.  They said, well, we will take the information to them, and indeed that is what this program does.  It takes the information to the women on the shop floor, and they had the co‑operation of businesses in the garment industry, who were co‑operating in bringing this information to their employees.  It is the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation that first approached two Winnipeg factories to see if women would be interested, and the factories co‑operated, and they were interested.  So they should be commended for innovative programs like that.

 

          I have another article also from the Free Press of October 27, 1993, also about the Manitoba Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, who announced a new Department of Psychosocial Oncology, which makes Manitoba a leader in helping people cope with cancer.

 

          It is very interesting to read the literature in this area about the links between people's personality and different kinds of cancer.  That is why a lot of effort is being put on this, I guess, new or developing area in terms of cancer treatment whereby people are receiving counselling, and they are part of support groups, and they are looking at their lifestyle but also looking at how they relate to other individuals, and there seems to be some evidence linking personality to different kinds of cancer.  So funding research or funding a new Department of Psychosocial Oncology, I think, is an important thing to do.

 

          I have here a chart of different types of cancer, and it says that an estimated 116,200 Canadians will find out they have cancer this year, and another 59,700 will die from it.  Of course, the chart is broken down into the different kinds of cancer, and the largest kind, with almost 20,000 individuals, is lung cancer.  This is one area where we know that we can do something about this because we know about the connection between lung cancer and tobacco.  We know that if we can decrease the amount of smoking in our society, we can decrease the incidence of cancer in the general population.

 

          I have been getting phone calls, and probably my colleagues in the Legislature have been getting phone calls from constituents who are concerned about the taxation of tobacco products in Manitoba.  I just had one this morning.  Sometimes we get accused of pandering to the public will and blowing with the wind and doing what people want.  This is one good example where I disagree with my constituents who have been phoning me and saying:  I support the current level of taxation on tobacco products in Manitoba.  In fact I support the government's position on that because Manitoba failed to cave in‑‑and they should be credited with this‑‑to the policies of the federal government, which withdrew a great deal of taxation in the province of Quebec, which forced Ontario to do the same because of their geographical proximity.

 

          We are disappointed that the federal government would do this, because they had alternatives.  They could have stood up to the smugglers, and the federal Liberal government could have stood up to the tobacco companies and said:  We are going to tax tobacco exports to the United States so that they would not be smuggled back into Canada, but they did not adopt that option.  They took the easy way out, of lowering tobacco taxes.  To their credit, the government of Manitoba has not taken the easy way out.  They have stood up to individuals who smoke.  I do not think anybody else agrees with them, but they have at least stood up to the smokers and said:  We are going to do this.

 

          They have done it for a very good reason.  I do not want to be an apologist for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and I do not know what all the reasons are that he would give for this, but I think the case is one of the public interest, of saying that we know that when people smoke, they have a much higher chance of getting lung cancer.  We know as a society that there is a great cost to this in terms of health care.  Not just lung cancer, but any kind of cancer has a cost to it.  It is all citizens, it is all of society in Canada who pay taxes who support our health care system.

 

          I suppose it might be different if individuals had to buy private insurance as they do in the United States, and if you are a smoker, if you want to pay 50 percent more in private insurance costs than your neighbour, then go ahead do it.  It does not affect anybody else.  But in Canada it affects all of us.  If people make a lifestyle choice and decide to smoke, then all of us pay for the consequences of that when people are treated in hospital.  So I personally agree that we should continue to support the current levels of tobacco taxation in Manitoba.

 

          The tobacco companies are trying to blackmail the Government of Canada.  It has been quite interesting to see the cartoon Doonesbury poking fun at the tobacco companies on a regular basis, even cartoon characters in the form of cigarettes.  In Canada one of the largest manufacturers, Philip Morris International, is saying if the federal government forces plain packaging then we will not invest money in the food industry and other industries that we have investments in in Canada, and they are a very large investor.

 

          For example, Philip Morris owns Kraft General Foods Canada Inc., Canada's largest packaged food maker and distributor with 11 plants and 4,700 employees.  The company's 100‑odd brands, including Nabob and Maxwell House coffees, Tang, Jello and Post and Nabisco cereals, dominate the shelves of Canadian supermarkets.

 

          Well, I think the government should say we are going to do it even if you carry out your threat, your blackmail, because we know that other companies would be happy to invest in Canada.  If you are not going to invest in new plants and equipment to process food products and other things in Canada, we are sure that there are other companies that will.

 

          It reminds me of a very good quote that I would like to share, by the mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, Mayor Hazel McCallion.  Mayor McCallion once said in a speech in Winnipeg, we want development but on our terms.  I think that is an appropriate position for any government to take.  I think any government would say that they welcome development, but she had the courage to say, on our terms.  Now I suppose it is easier for the mayor of Mississauga to say that than other people because the developers are constantly knocking on their doors because of their geographic location between Toronto and Hamilton.

 

* (1650)

 

          I wish that the federal government would take this approach and say to the tobacco companies, we are going to go ahead with plain packaging and if you do not invest in Canada, we are sure that somebody else will.

 

          So I hope that the tobacco lobby does not get through to members on the government side.  I hope they continue their position of continuing the taxation.  I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) quoted on the news within the last week saying that their tax revenue from taxing the sale of tobacco products has not gone down‑‑I believe he was referring to the first three months of this year‑‑in spite of what some people predicted.  Of course, some people will subvert the law and try and get around the law, but I think it will always be a small minority of people and they will, of course, have to pay the consequences.

 

          I have an article here called Trends in Health Status and Practices in Canada and the United States, an article written by Charlotte Schoenborn.  This is from Canadian Social Trends, Winter 1993.  It is published by Statistics Canada.  It is a very interesting little paper because it talks about healthier lifestyles and says, "Behaviours that have been aggressively targeted with public education campaigns, legislation and taxation‑‑such as smoking, impaired driving and seat belt use‑‑are changing the most."  There is good reason for that.  I mean we know statistically that when taxation is increased on tobacco products that the amount of consumption goes down.  We know if that consumption stays down that the incidence of lung cancer and other kinds of cancer is going to go down as well.  It is good that governments are targeting smoking as a lifestyle choice that is not a desirable lifestyle choice and encouraging people to quit smoking.

 

          You know, there is an aphorism that you cannot legislate morality, and I do not personally agree with that.  I think you can legislate morality.  In Manitoba, a good example would be drinking and driving whereby the government has had an extensive advertising campaign against drinking and driving and has also increased the penalties for drinking and driving and the result is that people do not drink and drive nearly as often as they used to in Manitoba. [interjection] Well, I would not quite go that far.  The result is that fewer people drink and drive and fewer people are killed on the highways of Manitoba because of that.

 

          Similarly with tobacco, if governments and the Manitoba Lung Association and other organizations carry out an extensive advertising campaign against smoking and if taxation remains high, it encourages people to quit smoking.  There are many positive benefits to the public in Manitoba when that happens.

 

          The other two examples are impaired driving and seat‑belt use.  I used impaired driving as an example, and I think seat‑belt use is a third example that has been shown to be effective when it is targeted.  When the laws are changed to make seat belts compulsory and when there is an effective advertising campaign, then people indeed do buckle up and they do use their seat belts, and then they have fewer injuries and fewer deaths when they are involved in accidents.

 

          Going back to Philip Morris, I believe that some consumers in the United States are going to organize consumer boycotts, and I would encourage Canadians to do the same thing.  If Philip Morris is going to blackmail the Canadian government and the Canadian people, then we should indeed boycott Philip Morris products so they can experience some consumer wrath and be forced to change their policies as a result.

 

          It would be a shame indeed if the federal government refused to act on this because of concerns about the Free Trade Agreement and the NAFTA agreement being abrogated in some way because of special packaging laws in Canada.  It would reveal the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA for what they really are, and that is giving up our Canadian sovereignty.

 

          We know the Liberals campaigned in September and October of 1993 on a policy of renegotiating NAFTA with the United States, but when they formed government, they proclaimed it on January 1 with no changes.  That was one of their first major flip‑flops.  The public may not see the consequences of this for some time, but we may well have an example here of a major implication of the Free Trade Agreement and NAFTA if indeed plain packaging cannot be brought in in Canada because of NAFTA.  It would be a shame if, as a result, the Canadian government was unwilling to stand up to the tobacco companies and stand up to the United States and do what they should be doing in order to discourage Canadians from smoking. [interjection]

 

          The member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) brings up an interesting point:  What about those tobacco farms in Ontario?  I think there are two ways of doing things.  One is you close people down and you do not care about the consequences.  Tobacco farms are one example, military bases are another.

 

          Just to use military bases as an example, for many years the peace movement has been saying, what we need is a military conversion policy so that we convert military factories and military bases to peaceful and nonmilitary uses.  When the federal government, the Liberal government came in and they said, we are going to reduce the military budget, they closed bases with no policy of conversion to nonmilitary uses. [interjection]

 

          Well, if Cornwallis is being transferred to another use, I am happy to hear that.

 

          With tobacco farmers the same thing is true.  There should be a conversion program so they can get into other kinds of agriculture that are not harmful to people's health.  If that requires public tax dollars to do, then maybe they should do that as well.

 

          To conclude my remarks on The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act, we are going to be supporting this bill.  We would like to see it go to committee.  There is nothing that is particularly contentious in this bill.  We are prepared to perhaps put up our Health critic, and he will probably be our last speaker on this bill.

 

          I am sure that when our Health critic speaks on this bill he will use the opportunity to talk about health care cutbacks, because we know that this government likes to talk about good news like this minor amendment bill, but they really do not want to talk about things like cutbacks to home care, closing hospital beds, Filmon Fridays, Connie Curran, signing $4 million contracts with an American consultant in order to tell us in Canada, who have a better health care system than the Americans, how to run our health care system.

 

          Just today I happened to be at a hospital.  I talked to the co‑ordinator of volunteers.  This individual told me that she had 39 junior high and high school students who were recruited to volunteer in Seven Oaks hospital.  Because she is losing Filmon Fridays‑‑and now they are calling them Filmon Mondays‑‑she cannot supervise and train these volunteers, so all of them are being referred to nursing homes.  I think that is a shame, particularly because it is this government that forced that on this institution.  This government is the one who is trying to offload to the volunteer sector and offload to nonprofit organizations and churches.

 

          It is all through the speeches of your ministers.  Just read the speeches from the current Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) and the previous Minister of Family Services.  They are on record in Hansard as talking about the important role of volunteers in our society.  Then Seven Oaks hospital recruits 39 volunteers and they say, we cannot use them because of Filmon Fridays.  Shame on you.  These are young people that want to get experience in the health care system as volunteers, and they do not have room for them because of Filmon Fridays.

 

          This is the same government that argues every day in Question Period and every day in Health Estimates that the quality of patient care has not been jeopardized by their cuts.  That is not true, because volunteers are very important to the quality of patient care at Seven Oaks Hospital.

 

          So with those few remarks, I am about to wrap up my remarks on Bill 3, The Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation Amendment Act.

 

          Thank you, Mr. Acting Speaker.

 

* (1700)

 

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS

 

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Reimer):  The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.

 

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

 

Res. 19‑‑Save Rail Jobs

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that

 

          WHEREAS CN Rail and CP Rail have secretly been discussing the merger of rail operations from Winnipeg east; and

 

          WHEREAS CP Rail has changed from a Canadian company to a flag of convenience company; and

 

          WHEREAS CN has completed the Northern Ontario rail line abandonment feasibility study in 1987; and

 

          WHEREAS the federal Minister of Transport has stated that he is looking forward to analyzing any proposals that may be brought forward by CN and CP Rail to merge or otherwise rationalize their operations in Canada; and

 

          WHEREAS the federal Minister of Transport has stated that railways are nostalgia and romanticism from the past; and

 

          WHEREAS the federal Minister of Transport has hinted that CN may be privatized causing major job losses in western Canada and in Manitoba; and

 

          WHEREAS CN Rail Transcona Shops employs some 1,800 people; and

 

          WHEREAS Manitoba has lost over 3,000 rail jobs since 1988 and is continuing to lose jobs; and

 

          WHEREAS the Dugald, Manitoba Wheat Pool grain elevator services and area grain producers would be severely affected by the loss of rail services; and

 

          WHEREAS property owners living in communities along Manitoba's eastern border now serviced by the CN Reditt Subdivision rail line will be left isolated with no ground transportation services with the merger of the two rail lines.

 

          THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly and government of Manitoba call upon the federal government to reject the merger of CN and CP Rail operations; and

 

          BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the provincial government to pressure the federal government to live up to its commitment to restore Manitoba as the rail transportation hub of Canada; and

 

          BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of the Assembly send a copy of this resolution to the federal Minister of Transport and to all Manitoba members of parliament.

 

Motion presented.

 

Mr. Reid:  It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to this resolution which is of very timely significance considering that for the last two days we have raised in this House matters pertaining to the merger of CN and CP Rail operations from Winnipeg east.

 

          We have asked questions of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) here, hoping that he and his government would take some steps to protect the interests of Manitobans not only employed in the rail sector but also for those who utilize the services of the two railways.

 

          I think back to some of the comments that were made by the federal government when they came into office and they introduced their recent budget, when the federal Minister of Transport said during the budget debate in parliament that railways were a romanticism and nostalgia of the past.  Those are the comments of the federal Minister of Transport, Doug Young.

 

          Since that time we have seen further comments come from this minister relating to the railway merger.  He has said, not long after assuming his office as Transport Minister for Canada, that he was waiting with anticipation to look at the merger proposal that would be brought forward by the two railways, and it left us with the thoughts, Mr. Acting Speaker, that this minister was intent on giving it his blessing, and that the two railways could indeed go forward with their merger.

 

          This is going to have significant consequences for us in the province of Manitoba.  We have within the province of Manitoba not only the rail operations where the trains move back and forth, but we have the maintenance repair shops in Manitoba as well.  As the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) has said today, we have some 12.5 percent employment in the rail sector within Manitoba in comparison to our population base in comparison to the rest of Canada.  That is a significant number of jobs, so we stand to lose a lot in this province.

 

          In my own community of Transcona, we have some 2,000 people who are associated with the railway activities.  In addition to that, we have a number of people who are working at various communities throughout Manitoba, including other parts of Winnipeg, in particular the Weston repair shops where we have many hundreds more railway employees who are actively involved in the repair of rolling stock equipment.

 

          Now we learn today, Mr. Acting Speaker, that the head of CN Rail, Mr. Paul Tellier, CEO, is actively looking at the possibility of moving the CN Transcona Shops operations to amalgamate it with the operations in Calgary, CP operations in Calgary.  Now that throws a cloud over what is happening here in Manitoba, and I do not know why this Minister of Highways and Transportation has not taken the necessary steps to at least ask the CN officials if that is their position and why they are making comments like that, comments that were made in the Parliament of Canada Standing Committee of Transport.

 

          We have to take the steps now to protect those jobs.  We cannot wait until the ministers get together for their meeting in July.

 

          If we wait that long‑‑we look at the comments even when I asked questions yesterday relating to CN's communications strategy.  CN Rail has now hired the services of a private company who has put together for CN Rail a strategic communications plan dated May 24, '94.  In this proposal, in this document that I have in my hands, it calls for CN to neutralize the campaign against the possible merger of the activities of CN and CP rail.

 

          To me that is an affront to the democratic process that we have in this country.  Here are two companies that are going to look at‑‑and they have targeted specific groups in their activities where they want to target CN managers, CN employees, municipal authorities and community leaders, union officials, federal and provincial government representatives and the media in their efforts to stop the debate and to divert the debate taking place about the merger between the two railways.

 

          This is a significant document, Mr. Acting Speaker.  This is a change in the direction for the corporation itself, I believe.  I do not think I have ever seen anything like this in my working career when I was working with this company where they would actively promote the neutralization of any public opinion against any activities which they were undertaking.

 

          That is not the way we operate in Canada.  We have a democratic process here that allows all members of the public, and this is why I raise the issue today with the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) when I asked why we did not include members of the public and railway employees, who are going to be severely impacted by any merger proposal that comes forward.

 

          The three governments, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, have hired a consulting firm, Sypher: Mueller International, I think is the name, and the consultant has contacted Manitoba shippers for their views and will hold a workshop in Winnipeg on June 9, 1994‑‑last week‑‑to allow shippers to raise and discuss their concerns.  I raised the issue with the Minister of Highways and Transportation.

 

          It is with the view that there are more people in our province that are going to be impacted by the decisions of these two railways to merge and that should be consulted about their concerns so that they have the opportunity to raise them with the minister, with the consultant and at the same time could help us put forward a plan of action that the three provinces can come forward with a unified position.  So I think it is important that we have the railway employees and the members of the general public involved in that.

 

          This document from May 24, the Strategic Communications Plan, indicates that, and I will quote directly from the document:  A great many communities which owe the basis of their quality of life to railway activities in the eastern part of the country will probably be hard hit by CN's measures to reduce cost.  So it is very obvious that there is going to be significant impact by the merger proposal.

 

          This strategic document goes on to state, Mr. Acting Speaker, that it calls for a short, low‑profile, high‑intensity communications campaign to divert attention away from the merger proposal itself.  It also goes on to talk about many of the communities that are going to be impacted and the actions that could be taken to divert attention away from the merger, because these communities, the people that are living in them, and the employees of the railway are attempting to draw public attention to the merger itself.

 

          The Ontario government, as we already know, has already taken a stand on the merger proposal, something that other governments in Canada have not taken a stand on to this point in time.  I was happy to see that Ontario did take that stand because it is very obvious that they too are going to be seriously impacted by the merger.  So they have already recognized that and they have already taken a stand.

 

          I will read the objectives into the record, Mr. Acting Speaker, of what this CN strategic plan is.  It says here that CN is going to divert the debate so that it does not focus solely on the projected merger.  It is going to limit the damage caused by the campaign undertaken by residents and it is going to prepare CN for similar actions in other local communities that may be hit by changes in company operations.

 

* (1710)

 

          So those are some of the objectives of this strategic plan that the company has in dealing with the merger proposal.  It goes on to talk about CN and its officials avoiding meetings with groups except in circumstances controlled by CN.  In addition to that it says to their officials that they should avoid meetings with journalists except in circumstances allowing a minimum of control over the result.  So they are trying to control the media as well through this process.

 

          At the same time, they have key messages that they want to send out to the public so they get their spin on the story on how this merger is supposed to be good not only for Ontario but for the other provinces where the merger is going to have some impact.

 

          The scary part about this whole thing is that this strategic plan was supposed to have been concluded by the end of June, two weeks hence.  So it is very obvious that CN feels that this merger proposal is going to go forward before the end of the month.  That is why I think that it is important for the minister of our province, the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay), to take a serious stand on what we think about the impacts the merger is going to have on the province of Manitoba.

 

          Now, I go back to some of the comments that we had when we were talking about the short‑line railway legislation in the last session of this Legislature, Bill 33, I think it was.  We had members of the House, a few of us had the opportunity to speak on this legislation.  I am going to take a quote here directly from the Leader of the second opposition party, the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mr. Edwards).  It says, Mr. Acting Speaker, I just hope very much that we have a change of government at the federal level, because I know that will bring with it a change of philosophy about rail lines, about these national institutions.  It pains me to see millions and millions and millions of dollars that are spent in other much less important expeditions than keeping these rail lines together.

 

An Honourable Member:  Who said that?

 

Mr. Reid:  The Leader of the Liberal Party said that on July 7, 1993.  Now here we have the member's own party saying that railways are nostalgia and romanticism from the past.  We have the federal Liberal Minister of Transportation saying to the Canadian public, now we need to eliminate all of the subsidies for all of the transportation programs that we have in Canada.  He wants to eliminate $590 million from the WGTA, the Western Grain Transportation Act, the same programs that support the producers of this country in getting their product to export market position.

 

          We have the federal Liberal Minister of Transportation now saying that he wants to eliminate the $330 million transportation subsidies of VIA Rail, the very same subsidy that supports the bayline activities for VIA Rail to provide service to the remote and isolated communities of northern Manitoba.  And it goes on where he wants to eliminate the subsidies to the ports, Port Corperations of Canada.  He wants to eliminate subsidies to the ferry services of Canada that provide important transportation links to other provinces in Canada.  It wants to eliminate the coast guard services and support subsidies that are in place in Canada, and he wants to commercialize the activities.  That is the term of reference that he is using.  Now, he wants to commercialize the activities.

 

          I am sure when we look back at some of the comments that have been made about commercialization, we all know what the reference is when we talk about privatization.  Everyone knows that privatization means that we move away from government‑supported programs, but at the same time, it gives us cause for some concern because it leads us to conclude that what this government wants to do is indeed privatize all of the transportation services in our country, but he is using the word now "commercialize."

 

          I want to read into the record, Mr. Acting Speaker, a definition from the dictionary that I took this afternoon on the word "commercialize":  to manage a business, basis for profit, to develop commerce in, to exploit for profit, to debase in quality for more profit.  That is the definition of commercialization.  So do not let the federal Minister of Transportation tell us that he is not trying to privatize the transportation services in this country.

 

          I know the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) here has an interest in transportation; otherwise, he would not be doing the job that he is.  I also know that the Minister of Highways and Transportation has living with him in his own constituency that he represents many rail employees.  I know many of those people; I used to work with them.  I know them personally.  I grew up with many of them, there is no doubt about that.  There are many people from my own community of Transcona have relocated to the communities of Springfield.  They are very worried about what is going to happen with their rail jobs.

 

          I hope that the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) will take the necessary steps, not only in the best interests of transportation employees and shippers in this province, but also to represent the interests of the constituents in his own communities.

 

          We have had a problem within the province of Manitoba going back to, I believe it is, 1991, when we lost great coal and potash traffic that was being diverted by CP Rail through North Portal, Saskatchewan.  In addition to that, we have seen further erosions of rail traffic moving by way of diversion through the U.S.

 

          It is my understanding, and I talked to a CP Rail just at lunchtime today‑‑he tells me that the CP Rail network has more trackage miles in the United States now than it does in all of Canada.  It is my understanding, they are looking to expand that network further, so even if you look at the side of the locomotives and the rolling stock equipment that have, they have now painted the American flag as part of their decal, which tells me that this company is nothing but a flag‑of‑convenience company and that they are not going to do the things that are in the best interests of the country.

 

          If you look at the words of Paul Tellier, the CEO for CN Rail, it appears that CN Rail is headed in the same direction.

 

          When this country started, it was built by the railways.  We gave CP Rail $25 million and 25 million acres of land to establish the rail network in this country, and now they are abandoning Canada by the actions that they are taking to divert their traffic and the job opportunities through the U.S.  So we have to take the steps within this country and stand united to make sure that we protect the rail transportation jobs within this province.

 

          When I referenced the fact that we are going to have problems on the rail line, the abandonment study that was done in 1987, Mr. Acting Speaker, you can take a look at the statistics relating to the main‑track derailments.  The report that came out just recently shows that there has been a lack of maintenance on that line that has led to further derailments, some very serious derailments, some of them involving chemical spills.  Many of the members of the public are not aware of these spills or these derailments, but I have witnessed them personally and the devastation that they have caused to parts of northern Ontario.

 

          So I ask all members of the House, Mr. Acting Speaker, to stand united on this matter and to take a position that we will no longer stand for the erosion of rail jobs in the province of Manitoba, and ask the federal government to live up to their commitment of the 1993 election wherein they called for the restoration of Manitoba as the transportation hub of Canada.  Thank you.

 

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Acting Speaker, I think the member who introduced the resolution is very right, and it is rather timely that this would come up at this particular time, given comments coming from the federal Minister of Transport over the three speeches that he has made in recent days.

 

* (1720)

 

          Clearly, the rail industry is at a very significant crossroads.  As I mentioned in Question Period today, as the Minister of Transportation, the thing that really disturbs me about the comments that have been made is that they have been made pretty much in isolation.  There has been no discussion with provincial ministers, current or that preceded me.  He has laid out no plan of how he is going to attack the initiatives he has laid out.  One could easily argue from the strong and repeated statements made that he is on a very committed course, because the first speech was the kind you had to read between the lines; the second speech, there seemed to be ambiguity between ministers in Ottawa, backtracked the next day; and then the next time in Toronto, bang, it was head on.  The statements were the same.  They were added to.  There was a very clear statement that they were going to terminate an awful lot of activities that we have known traditionally to be part of the transportation activity in not only western Canada but all of Canada.

 

          I think we must recognize though, just to talk about the reality we face, that we are in a global trading environment.  We have to compete globally.  We have CUSTA and NAFTA that are a part of reality now.  I think the trading changes, the movement of goods would have changed‑‑were changing before these agreements were signed, would have changed pretty much to the same extent today without those agreements.  We are clearly moving more and more in a north‑south trade pattern, as we have talked about repeatedly here.  Since 1990 our trade patterns in the U.S. have increased by some 40 percent.

 

          Everybody in the economic world, everybody who is out in the private sector trying to create jobs and earn a living, does realize very clearly they must be competitive.  We must be able to supply the customer with the product and supply it at a price‑‑and I have heard repeatedly, as I have said in this House, there are more and more commodities moving, whether you talk to the railroads, whether you talk to the trucking industry.

 

          Clearly, things are changing, and the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), if I understand what he is saying repeatedly, in this resolution, in the nature of the questions he asks, the process of discussion through Estimates, he wants to save jobs for the sake of jobs.  He says we must act to save jobs.  I interpret that to mean we must just stop the world and freeze it where it is and those jobs are guaranteed no matter what.

 

          That is not the real world anymore, and if we are going to save jobs, it has to be because they are there to perform a service‑‑produce a product, move a product, whatever‑‑for somebody who is willing to pay the price for the service provided that that job is involved with.  That is the reality we must live with.  That is the changing world, and we all want to pursue that objective.

 

          I think if that member talks to his counterparts who are in government in Ontario, Saskatchewan or B.C., he will find that they have woken up to that reality too.  We can talk about saving jobs, but the best way to save them is if they are doing something that is productive and everybody along the way is making a small profit, that there is a product produced that somebody wants to buy.

 

          That is the global economic system that has withstood the test of time.  It is a system that is effective.  It does create efficiency, and it is the way of the current time and certainly the way of the future.

 

An Honourable Member:  Sixty‑million‑dollar budget for Transcona Shops . . . .

 

Mr. Findlay:  There is a big budget in Transcona Shops, as the member says, for jobs, yes.  But what is the new reality to make sure those jobs are there?  That is the issue.

 

          If we are moving commodities more and more north‑south‑‑there will always be the continuous east‑west.  Winnipeg and Manitoba always will be a hub, I think more of a hub in the future than they have been in the past.  And if you have two rail companies in this country, both of which have certainly experienced serious financial problems‑‑because I do not think they really managed in the context of understanding the realities that were about them and that they had to face, that is why there is difficulty there.

 

          Now, if we can say, everything must stay the way it is, nothing will change in the railway companies‑‑I have been told that technically they are bankrupt.  And would we not be in a terrible position if they closed the doors?  I mean, that is a reality.  If you are bankrupt, you close the doors.  One can say some provinces are in that position.  Some can say the federal government is in that position.  Even though that is unlikely to happen, it is a fundamental reality.  It could happen.  So we must make adjustments to allow the rail industry, the truck industry and the airline industry to compete and be profitable in today's economic environment.  That does mean change.

 

          As I look at the rail industry, it is rather astounding that activities in the rail industry in western Canada are subsidizing activities in eastern Canada.  That is where all the people are.  That is where all the production, manufacturing is happening.  Yet we are subsidizing them.  Now, I can understand why eastern Canada wants to have two railroads.  They want the competition.  Absolutely, the Transportation Act of 1987 promoted competition, and we want to see competition.

 

          The railroads are in a very difficult time, and in many senses it is a parallel to what we were talking about about a year ago in the airline industry.  You had two major companies fighting with each other, one of them or both of them potentially going to go broke.  Over the course of time, solutions that were not apparent at the beginning were found as long as you kept talking and looking and analyzing options.  I think it is fair to say on this day that Canadian Airlines and Air Canada and Gemini all have a much more potentially good future than they had a year ago.  They got some new alignments and new arrangements, and they are looking at the world in a different fashion than they were a year ago when they wanted to kill each other.

 

          Today you have CN and CP in the same scenario.  I do not agree with the federal minister that, as he states, the dream is dead or‑‑here it is‑‑the future of the rail industry is uncertain, is gripped by problems of overregulation, mismanagement, overcapacity, financial losses, archaic work practices and out‑of‑date legislation, and the survival of the national passenger rail system in Canada is very much in question.

 

          That is a lot of pretty strong statements.  One might agree with some capacity of it, some components of it, and as I am trying to say, there is some economic reality we must address, they must address because we, as a country, cannot allow continual losses to happen in the industry.  I think there are answers along the way in how CN and CP can function in this country to create jobs, more modern jobs, more high‑tech jobs.  There are great opportunities in terms of the intermodalism between particularly truck and rail and I think with air cargo movement in the future.  As we talked about the northern distribution alliance, the rail is a very significant part of it to distribute from here the goods that come in through that‑‑to that potential system in the future.

 

          We can expand the jobs in transportation here but not by having a closed mind on adapting to the future.  We cannot close our mind.  We must be innovative and find what commodities are moving from where to where.  What is the cost efficiency for us to play a role in it?  Those are the kinds of jobs that will survive the test of the future.

 

An Honourable Member:  The equipment is stretched to the limits now.  We cannot get enough equipment.

 

Mr. Findlay:  The member says the equipment is stretched to the limit.  That is in the current time frame that he is looking at.  There are ways and means to make things more efficient, and we have had a shortage of commodities moving in the past.  We had all kinds of equipment parked‑‑[interjection] That is exactly the reality.  He just identified it.  Everybody is working with a smaller bottom line.  Yes, more goods are moving, and there are less jobs.  That is exactly what is going on everywhere in society. [interjection] The member blames free trade.   If it was not for free trade, a lot more downsizing would have happened.  There is no question.

 

          CP now owns a lot of lines in the United States, and that is moving goods out of western Canada, eastern Canada into the northeastern United States.  Particularly, it creates jobs that are happening in Canada, and they are doing the services in the United States.  That adaptation‑‑[interjection]

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, free trade is an absolute reality.  You can argue against it all you want in opposition, but it is a fact of life.  It was happening anyway.  Those agreements did not change much because the normal process of economic development, marketplace orientation was happening and will continue to happen, and we have been very successful in that context.  The trucking industry has evolved very effectively under deregulation, very competitively.  In Winnipeg, we have six of the 10 national trucking firms headquartered here.  That is very significant, part of the hub of transportation in Canada.

 

          An example I heard the other day, just to show you how important we are as a hub, is people look at how to do things more cost effectively.  An oil rig drilling operation in Texas had a job to drill in northern Russia.  They had to get the rig from Texas to Russia.  You know what they did?  They trucked it from Texas up to Winnipeg, put it on a plane and flew it over.  Now that is a good example of the northern distribution alliance principle being played out.

 

          How many more times can we do that?  How can the people in the transportation industry be innovative to bring people forward to take advantage of the opportunities we have?  If we offer a service that is attractive at a price that is attractive, that is how we will attract the business and that is how we will attract the jobs.  There has been some argument and discussion about activity at the airport overnight in terms of freight moving in overnight‑‑Purolator contract.  That is 40 more jobs at the airport.  That is significant.  That is how you create jobs.  You be innovative and do things that attract somebody to buy your service or use your carrier, whatever the situation is.  That is the reality of the future.

 

* (1730)

 

          Now I think Mr. Young has gone a wee bit too far.  If we are going to have change‑‑and I know we are going to have change‑‑let us have some meaningful discussion and consultation with the provinces, with the industry, instead of going out boom, bang, crash with three speeches that get harder and harder and leave the rest of us wondering, well, what is coming next.  He is talking about taking away subsidies, and the reality is some of these subsidies will have to diminish over time but not be removed overnight.  It is absolutely the wrong way to approach it, because it creates pandemonium in the system.  Natural progressive adjustment is part of the world we live in.

 

          The resolution addresses the CN‑CP merger.  I know the members would like to see it stop, but the process‑‑and he talks about democracy and we have a democratic process in this country‑‑nothing will happen till they have gone before the Bureau of Competition, and certainly the National Transportation Agency will have to approve it.  We have requested that they hold public hearings in the process.  No question about it.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, in this process we are certainly concerned about the employment reductions that might result from this, but also are looking at the opportunities of employment increases as we become more of a hub.  Let us say, the Newco idea comes forward, CN, CP work in the West.  This is more of a hub where those three railroads interconnect, and then Burlington Northern, north‑south, interconnect here in Winnipeg.  I think there are more jobs to be created in that fashion.

 

          The member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) does not want to hear that optimism.  One does not want to develop opportunity around where opportunity has a chance of developing. [interjection] Well, the member is worried about Detroit headquarters.  Well, why did Canadian Pacific have their Canadian custom service centre located in Winnipeg?  That is positive; that is optimism.

 

          There are job losses across the country, and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) wants to downgrade that.  They put 210 jobs in Winnipeg, and he wants to scoff at that.  I mean, a job is a job.  Those are the modern, high‑tech jobs.

 

An Honourable Member:  How many running trades did you lose that same year, the CP?

 

Mr. Findlay:  Well, the member obviously wants to say, let all of the losses happen, we will do nothing about trying to find opportunity, and the member says, you let them go.  The marketplace will dictate whether jobs are needed in the current time in the future; there is no question about that.  If he is going to keep his head in the sand, yes, jobs will be lost, and the new technology jobs will not happen in Winnipeg.

 

          The telecommunications area is where they have been happening, and I am very happy that CP is here doing it.  I would hope that we have an opportunity to attract CN to do that in the future, modern, high‑tech jobs.  Mr. Acting Speaker, we are certainly concerned about the economic and social consequences for the communities along the rail lines if the rail line disappears somewhere in eastern Canada.  There are certainly consequences for their ground transportation.

 

          We are certainly concerned about the inevitable return to a monopoly system because we believe in competition.  The National Transportation Act of 1987 certainly opened up opportunities for competition.  We have achieved more competition in the rail industry, and we want that to continue.

 

          I do not think that the current option that is being discussed, total merger in the east, nothing else‑‑it will be the final result.  We must be involved in a constructive process of discussion to find out what option will work for the survival of those two rail lines.  The member for Transcona probably wants to see their total demise and both of them to go bankrupt, which would never serve the interest of Manitoba.

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster):  It is with pleasure that I am going to stand and put a few words on the record with respect to this particular resolution that is introduced from the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).

 

          Let me start off by talking a bit about my own personal background within the CN and experiences that I have had with CP.  I would like to assure, in particular, the member for Transcona that the concern that he expresses and, I take it, expressing on behalf of his political party is no more than the concern that members of the Liberal caucus, in particular myself, have with CN and with CP.

 

          I know, for example, my family in itself has had many opportunities, jobs, within CN and the CN yards, starting from my grandfather and brothers of my grandfather's, other generations of my family that have had the opportunity to work with CN.

 

          With respect to the Weston Shops under the former riding or prior to the last boundary redistribution, I represented both sides of the CP or the Weston Shops between Logan Avenue and Selkirk, if you like, and now I represent, I guess, it would be the northern side of the Weston Shops, if you like.

 

          I have had opportunity to talk to both CP and CN workers.  My own campaign manager in my campaign, the one who is promoting the Canadian Auto Workers union is someone I am talking to all of the time, and we express the concerns in terms of the CN and CP and the future of the railway industry in Canada.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, I guess if you ask the question, is there a need for change, I would answer that by saying, yes, there is a need for change.  I think if you take a look, not only at the railway industry, if you take a look at all the different industries that are out there, even governments and Crown corporations, health institutions, you are seeing a considerable amount of change, not because it is, in many cases, a choice; it is reality.  You have to be able to look into the future and make some necessary changes in order to ensure that the survival of those industries is going to be there.

 

          It was interesting, the minister was talking about opportunities, or potential opportunities, if you like, and the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) from his seat made reference to let us not fool anybody or who are you trying to fool?  Mr. Acting Speaker, I do not believe that the member for Transcona wants to hear about what could be potential positive outcomes of any sort of negotiations or any sorts of change, that the status quo is what the member for Transcona wants to see.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, I sincerely believe that if the status quo were to prevail, if the member for Transcona's debate that he provided for today was to succeed and nothing was done, that is not going to be in the best interests of the workers in Transcona that not only live in Transcona but live throughout the city of Winnipeg and, in fact, in some parts of rural Manitoba.  I have an uncle who works over at the CN who lives out in Ste. Anne.  This affects not only people who live in Transcona; this affects people throughout the province of Manitoba in terms of jobs.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, I believe that there is a responsibility of all members of this Chamber to acknowledge the fact that there is that need for change, and when we acknowledge that fact, that does not mean that there is going to be a merger.

 

          If you read the resolution, you would be convinced that the member for Transcona is saying that there will be a merger, that there is no doubt whatsoever.  That might fit the member for Transcona's own political agenda, but that does not necessarily mean that that is going to be the eventual outcome.

 

* (1740)

 

          I would refer to what the minister made reference to.  I remember the discussions because I attended the rally that was sponsored from the unions with Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, and we were hearing then a lot of concern being dealt with, and saying, well, we do not want to see a merger because if we see a merger that is going to be a loss of jobs, not only a loss of jobs at Canadian Airlines.  It was being said by the Liberals then in opposition; it was being said by the New Democrats also.  Not only did we see through a new administration the preservation of Canadian Airlines and Air Canada, we also saw a government that took the initiative to protect jobs at Gemini, and I have more faith in the current federal administration than the previous federal administration in terms of doing what it can to ensure that the jobs are, in fact, being preserved in the province of Manitoba, as it was alluded to earlier in terms of Manitoba having that 12 percent of those rail line jobs when we only have 4 percent of the population.

 

          I hope, and I will lobby‑‑and by lobbying, there are many different ways of lobbying, such as putting comments on the record this afternoon, as I have done‑‑my members of Parliament, and I would trust that, in fact, they will address this issue and come down with what is in the best interest of all Manitobans.

 

          It was interesting, my colleague for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski) had handed me an article from the Progressive Railroading magazine, I guess it is, from May 1994, and it makes reference where it says, and I quote:  Without considerable cost reduction, CN, which already pays $200 million per year in interest on long‑term debt, would see that debt double by 1998.

 

          Mr. Acting Speaker, what this does is, again, it reinforces that there is, whether one wants to believe this particular article or chooses not to believe this article, I would argue that there is that need for change, and what would be a better way of trying to accomplish that change than to try to get some form of a level of discussion that would be more apolitical if the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) and the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) are true to what they say inside the Chamber in terms of their sincerity towards protecting the jobs, protecting the railway industries in the province of Manitoba, or maybe that there is something we can do to ensure that that debate, that positive debate is, in fact, occurring, because what is most important to me, and I believe my caucus, is that the industry as a whole is healthy in the province of Manitoba and that as elected officials, we are doing what we can to ensure that those jobs are being protected wherever it is possible.

 

          That is the primary reason why I was wanting to stand up and put a few words on the record, Mr. Acting Speaker.  The current resolution, its form, I could not support for a number of different reasons, but I do believe in listening to the responses that there is something that maybe we can do as a legislative Chamber, and that is, in fact, what I am going to be suggesting in the form of an amendment.

 

          So at this point in time, I would like to move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs)

 

          THAT the resolution of the member from Transcona (Mr. Reid) be amended by deleting all of the words following the first "WHEREAS" and replacing them with the following:

 

          WHEREAS the railways are of great importance as an identifying and unifying element of Canada; and

 

          WHEREAS the importance of the railways to Canadians and to Manitobans has not diminished to the present day; and

 

          WHEREAS the city of Winnipeg remains a major rail centre with significant employment derived therefrom; and

 

          WHEREAS significant changes are likely to occur in the rail industry in the near future; and

 

          WHEREAS it is desirable that this government be apprised of the issues surrounding the railways so as to be able to respond effectively to changes in the railway industry;

 

          THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge this government to form an all‑party committee for the consideration of issues surrounding the railways and the future of the rail industry in the province of Manitoba.

 

(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)

 

Point of Order

 

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition):  A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the amendment proposed by the member for Inkster changes the original resolution, so to be out of order.  The original RESOLVED is for this Assembly to take a clear position on this merger, and the member for Inkster clearly demonstrates by his amendment that it clearly changes the intent of the original resolution before this Assembly.

 

Mr. Lamoureux:  Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, understanding in terms of what the Leader of the New Democratic Party has just said, I do believe there have been resolutions that have been introduced into this House over the last five and a half years, six years, that I have been here where we have seen much more significant changes to the resolution, but I would argue, of course, that what we are talking about here is the railway industry and that this resolution deals specifically with the importance of the railway industry as the other one does and, in fact, offers an alternative that would see a better level of debate which would be in the best interests of all Manitobans, and I would hope that the New Democratic Leader and the government would support it.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  On the point of order raised by the‑‑are you up on the same point of order? [interjection] On that same point of order? [interjection] No, not on the point of order, okay.  Are you up on the point of order?  Oh, okay.

 

          On the point of order raised by the honourable Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Doer), I am informing the honourable member that at this point in time, he does not have a point of order.  There is no point of order there.

 

          Having had an opportunity to quickly peruse the amendment of the honourable member for Inkster, I am going to take this amendment under advisement at this time, and I will come back to the House with a ruling on this one at a later date.

 

* * *

 

Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson):  Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to put a few comments on this important resolution on the record.

 

          I want to say that the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), I believe, truly does have the best interests of his constituency and employment opportunities of his constituency at heart, and I commend him for supporting the workers at the Transcona Shops and other transportation industry employees in this city as well as in this province.

 

          I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I commend the honourable member for Transcona for continually rising in the House and speaking in support of their position.  However, I think one must realize that in this debate and the resolution he has put forward and some of the points he makes in this resolution are basically stating what the NDP traditionally has done when they are not in government‑‑that is, espouse the position of the status quo.

 

          That has been traditionally the position of the NDP party, not only in this province but in many other provinces, and I think one only has to look at the record and the history of governments, be they in this province of Manitoba or be they in Ontario, Saskatchewan or B.C., that we realize quickly, once these parties in these provinces take power, they change their positions dramatically.  Whether we look at the health care system and the debates going on in the education system in some of the provinces to the west of us and other areas, I think we can truly reflect on the positions taken previously compared to the realities of the day when you are governing.

 

          I want to today probably take a bit of a different approach to this debate than has been taken by some because I commend the Transport Minister Young for some of the statements that he has made in some of the speeches that he has made lately, because in his conclusions he states that the Government of Canada will continue to meet its Constitution legally and fiduciary obligations with respect to transportation.

 

* (1750)

 

          I think that is an encouraging statement coming from a federal transportation minister.  When he states that Transport Canada will not abandon its responsibility to ensure that safe and secure transportation standards and rules and regulations will be maintained, I think that is an encouraging statement.  When he says, I believe it is possible to promote the national interest at the same time as protecting the interests of the national taxpayer of Canada, I think that is encouraging from a transportation minister's point of view.

 

          He says, however, that shippers must have an efficient and integrated transportation system.  I think that statement is one that leads the honourable member for Transcona to put forward the kind of resolution that he has put before us, because that in itself raises a number of questions.  However, some of the questions that we raise and the issues that Minister Young raises in his speeches are not only questionable, but they are, in part, downright scary, and the grain producers of western Canada must have some very, very deep concerns when they hear the minister say:  The future of the rail industry is uncertain.  It is gripped by problems of overregulation, mismangement, overcapacity, financial losses, archaic work practices, and out‑of‑date legislation.

 

           He says that the survival of a national passenger rail system in Canada is very much in question.  Towns such as Churchill and all the small communities from The Pas to Churchill certainly must have fear in their hearts when they hear that kind of statement.

 

          He says that the St. Lawrence Seaway is losing money and losing business year after year and cannot continue to operate under the status quo.

 

          Does that mean that he is also seriously considering shutting down the support system within the St. Lawrence Seaway?  That lends a scary aspect to the debate from the agricultural community's perspective in western Canada and specifically in this province of Manitoba, because not only have we relied traditionally on the ability of the St. Lawrence Seaway to move our goods, raw product as well as finished goods, out of this province in the most efficient manner, but we have relied on the ability of that system to bring goods back into western Canada in an economical manner.  So it is a two‑way street.

 

          He says that there is a continued, and will be a continued, shift towards north‑south trade corridors in North America, and I think that leads us to the reality of the debate.

 

          If we take the minister's statement at its worth, and I have no reason to believe that he is not an honest man, if we believe what he said in Toronto, that he will pull out of the system $650 million out of the railway system subsidization, that in itself, with the statement made that there is a continuing shift towards north‑south corridors, would lead me to believe that the federal Liberals in Ottawa are prepared not only to withdraw the funding of the Crow benefit that we have traditionally known in its entirety, but are willing to look at shifting transportation policy in a north‑south direction instead of an east‑west direction.

 

          Now what does that do for Manitoba?  I am not quite as pessimistic as the honourable member from Transcona (Mr. Reid) is in that sense.  I believe that lends some opportunities for the expansion of not only the railway system in Manitoba, but, in saying that, I am being very selfish for the province of Manitoba, because I think that in itself can direct some growth in the province of Manitoba.  I think that is detrimental to the province of Saskatchewan, and probably somewhat detrimental to the province of Alberta.

 

          We do have the Burlington Northern entering Winnipeg, and we do have the CP and CN Rail entering Winnipeg from both the east and the west side.  If you take that cross section of traffic and you assume that much of the grain could flow south down the Mississippi and into the Gulf of Mexico into an export position, which would be no more costly, maybe even less costly, than shipping down the St. Lawrence or through Vancouver without a subsidized transportation system.

 

          You might, in fact, encourage more job creation in the city of Winnipeg and the province of Manitoba if you did that because you would draw from both sides, both east‑west, into a north‑south transportation mode.

 

          That is what Minister Young calls futuristic thinking and maybe it is.  I have for years been a proponent of looking at the Red River corridor, for instance, in a much more integrated way than many of us have for many years.  I think we should take a real hard look at it, at doing away with much of the border when it comes to transport of goods and commerce.  I think we should build on our capacities on both sides, and that, in itself, could largely be accomplished by a better north‑south transportation system, if, in fact, Mr. Espy, the Agriculture Secretary in the United States, would agree that we would not inflict upon the American agricultural communities any hardships by moving our goods north and south.

 

          That, of course, would require that the Americans would have to concede that the Export Enhancement Program that they have used to dump large amounts of their raw ag commodities into the marketplace would have to be eliminated.

 

          I think there is a much, much broader debate than we are willing to enter into in this Chamber that will emanate out of this whole process.  I think we should be open enough in our approach to look at the total commercialization of the total system and how we use this total system to add value to what we really do well in this province.  We do have some tremendous natural resources we can utilize to add value, to create a job opportunity, that we have not utilized up to now.

 

          If we integrate the transportation system well enough and if we do not use the scare tactics that some would like to use, if we set them aside and look at the whole initiative in a positive sense, I think there are things we can achieve for Manitoba that have not been visible yet.

 

          I certainly would encourage all members of the Legislature to take a very hard look at it, at the integration of the total transportation system and add some efficiencies and values to the transportation system, because it would serve not only the agricultural community, it would serve the industrial community.  It would serve all of society in a much better way.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member will have three minutes remaining.

 

          The hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).