LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Monday, June 20, 1994
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
(continued)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be considering the Estimates for the Status of Women.
Does the honourable Minister responsible for the Status of
Women have an opening statement?
Point of Order
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): On my matter of privilege, it is fitting that
we are in the beginning of the Status of Women's Estimates here tonight. I think there is no better place to have my
matter of privilege come forward since it does affect my status as a woman in
the Legislature. I also want to clarify
that I want to deal with this matter not only as it is affecting me personally
but as it does affect women throughout the province.
I think when I look at the Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr. Orchard) and I realize he has had a chance in the Chamber to clarify the
situation, he has had a chance to apologize, as members have had on numerous
other occasions, and he has not used that opportunity, I think the seriousness of
this has increased. It seems that the
minister has made the decision to dig himself even deeper. I want to assure the committee that I feel
quite confident, particularly with the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) and
the amount of support I have received from my own caucus and from the second
opposition and from members of the community.
I have received a number of phone calls from members of the
community saying they think it is about time these kinds of things in the
Chamber were addressed. They are
horrified when they hear of some of the other examples of disrespect and
reference to violence and reference to members in a sexist and racist manner.
I think the comments that have been made in terms of the
Legislature reaching a new low when we have threats being made or insinuations
of violence being made, it does cross a line, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and you
were in the Chair at this committee when the incident occurred. I know in my discussions with you, you have
indicated that you heard some commotion at that time which indicated, I think
as well, that you knew that something of seriousness had occurred.
I think it is important that women do take a stand, that we
are not being victims when we voice our concern when we stand up and we say
that this has happened. I think some of
the comments that have been made in the community in terms of women being
victims if they are going to voice these kinds of concern, it is like you are
put in a position where you are walking a fine line. On the one hand, if you do not defend
yourself, you are considered to be a wimp or you cannot cut it. On the other hand, if you do defend yourself,
it is like you are no better than they are.
So it is really putting people, I think all of us as MLAs, in a very
disadvantageous situation, in a very narrow, narrow mode of being able to
function when we have this kind of behaviour, when we have this kind of
approach being taken in the House.
I also want to deal with the issue in terms of other areas
where it has occurred, because one of the first things that happens, as I can
see it, when someone is going to be discredited, is they are called names. When someone does not want to deal with the
ideas or the issue that you are raising, they will try to call you names and
attack you personally, and that is supposed to somehow take away your
credibility rather than dealing with the issues. I think that is really one of the things that
this is about. This is about saying that
we should be debating ideas and issues and stick to the high road and that we
cannot continue to have these kinds of personal attacks, whether it is coming
at members opposite or people in the community who are voicing concerns and
issues that the members in the House may not agree with.
So I think that this has to be taken seriously, and I think
that some of the members opposite have made the comment that we are
trivializing women's issues. I think
that there is no better way to show how seriously we take these matters than to
bring them forward in a way that is going to force everyone to consider the way
that we behave in the Legislature.
Now it would not have made any difference if I had raised
the matter in the committee. It would
not have made any difference since the Minister of Energy and Mines' (Mr.
Orchard) comments were not on the record.
So I just want to state that unfortunately the rules do not allow the
member for Osborne's (Ms. McCormick) comments to stand as evidence as they
would in other situations. So, with that
in mind, I think that what we have to do to see this matter through is have it
referred from this committee into the House where we can have the chance to
look at it more closely. I know that
there were a number of other people in the room from the Department of
Environment. There were the members of
the staff on the committee.
So I move
THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines of
Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply indicating "she
needs a slap" that violate my privilege as a member of the Legislature be
reported to the House and that in accordance with the provisions of Beauchesne
Citation 107 this committee recommend that this matter be referred to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Can I have the copy of the motion in writing,
please?
Motion presented.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I must inform the committee that, in
accordance with Beauchesne Citation 107, it has no power to deal with a matter
of privilege. Such matters can only be
dealt with by the House itself on receiving a report from the committee. Therefore, I am prepared to entertain this
motion and report the alleged matter of privilege to the House. The motion is debatable.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, the member in presenting her alleged matter of privilege,
made the specific reference that the comments were not part of the record. How can you have a matter of privilege in
which comments are not part of the record?
Comments, if they are made, are picked up by those interjection mikes on
the middle of the table which are in closer earshot than my honourable friend
was, allegedly, in sitting on the other side of the table. You cannot have a matter of privilege on
words that are not spoken and part of the record.
Sir, this is an incredible matter of privilege to be raised
on an admission that it is not part of the record. What do we do next in terms of raising
matters of privilege? What allegations
do we bring forward as matters of privilege with no substance to them?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, first of all I want to indicate, as you indicated, the motion
reports the matter to the House. The
House will deal with the specifics in terms of the question, first of all,
whether there be a prima facie case of a privilege.
* (2010)
I would also like to point out that this is, in essence,
the first opportunity to raise it since the ruling of the Speaker in the House
on Friday. That is why this matter has
been brought back at this particular point in time.
I do not want to make comments strictly in terms of its
weight as a matter of privilege, but I think we should define what the concern
is here and why the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) is so concerned about the
remarks that were made and indeed why comments that have been made in the
House, outside of the House in various different rooms, have been, according to
precedent, ruled as matters of privilege in the past, and there are various
precedents for those types of comments.
I believe, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for any member of the
Legislature to be able to uphold his or her responsibility to this House that
that member has to be able to do so expecting that there might be some disagreements
in debate. There might be even some
heated disagreements in debate and discussions of issues. I believe that there has to be a line drawn
in terms of comments that can be viewed as direct personal attacks,
particularly where there is concern on behalf of the member that those comments
are in some way, shape, or form being used to intimidate the person, the
individual member, into not performing his or her duties.
By the way, there are various different precedents in terms
of privilege where this has been the case, including press comments, individual
comments, threats. There are specific
citations in Beauchesne that refer to that matter.
I believe, based on what occurred last Monday, the best way
of dealing with this matter would be, as the motion presents in the form of a
remedy, first to report it to the House and then to have the matter raised at
Privileges and Elections, because I believe and I think anyone who has heard
the debate on the matter in the House both on Wednesday and Friday, I think it
is very clear to my mind that the member for Radisson believes that the
comments that were made by the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) fell
in that category.
Indeed, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I hate to say this, and I
do not mean this as a reflection on the House in general, but I do believe the
member for Radisson has been subjected to a number of comments, most of which
were certainly not in the same category as the comments we are dealing with
now, which do border on certainly harassment in the generic sense, whether it
be some of the comments that are hurled across the House in terms of the form
of nicknames, et cetera.
Those are not what we are dealing with. We are dealing with comments here that were
made in the committee that were witnessed by at least one other member of the
Legislature. The Minister of Energy and
Mines has a different version of what happened.
The Minister of Energy and Mines rose on his feet on a statement in the
House on Friday and added further comments to the record which, in the context
of the point of order which was raised, will probably result in a further
Speaker's ruling.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the right thing to do is to refer
this matter to the House and have it referred to the Committee on Privileges
and Elections.
Now, I would hope, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the process‑‑and
I say to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) that the way, I
believe, to deal with this matter would be, to begin with, the minister doing
what I thought he was going to do on Friday, which is to make a statement
withdrawing comments, clarifying comments, whatever, but in some form‑‑what
I would have expected in the way of some form of an apology or a clarification,
instead of raising further issues. That
would be the first step.
But, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in doing that, I do believe
that if there is one thing we can all do, and I say all of us as members of
this Legislature, following this incident and reflecting on the fact that this
is not the only time that comments have been made of a personal nature and
certainly not only to the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I remember when I was elected to this
Legislature, I thought that was the way it always was. But this is the 1990s. Maybe it is not the way it should always be.
Maybe we say things at times which we do not realize the
consequences of, and I say this to the Minister of Energy and Mines. Maybe we say things that may be viewed as an
extension of some of the give and take of debate, but I believe any objective
analysis of what was said on Monday would, I think, lead to the same conclusion
that many people have taken, that the Minister of Energy and Mines went beyond
the normal give and take of debate and indeed did raise comments which, to my
mind, apart from being something that would reflect in terms of privilege, just
have no real place in the Manitoba Legislature.
So why do we not do the proper thing? Get this matter referred to the House, refer
it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and perhaps in the process,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, do some soul‑searching as an institution, because
I believe we have made a lot of progress.
I can say that I believe there is a lot less acrimony certainly than a
number of years ago in this House, a lot less, in terms of personal comments
back and forth, personal attacks.
I think that there is a great deal of courtesy shown by the
vast majority of members, whether it be in terms of gender sensitivity, Mr.
Deputy Chairperson‑‑and I know I was asked that question when this
issue came up, and quite frankly, I believe the vast majority of MLAs do not
need gender‑sensitivity training.
I believe some perhaps might.
I believe some of us collectively might need some personal
sensitivity training, because I think what we forget here is that when people
see the kind of a display that takes place here, they would expect that if a
concern was raised it would be dealt with by a committee of the Legislature and
that all sides of the concern be dealt with and there be some remedy, because
that is the important thing here.
Comments were made.
It is not the first time that comments have been made. It will not be the last, unless we act and do
the right thing and make a commitment as a Legislature to try to remove some of
the type of personal, acrimonious and, in this case, in the view of the member
for Radisson, threatening comments that in this particular case would certainly
to my mind justify being considered a prima facie case of privilege in the
parliamentary sense, but I think in terms of the general public view would be
considered as absolutely inappropriate in terms of the kind of debate they
expect from us, because that is the truth here.
The members of the public watching us the last few days I
think have been dismayed, and I think they would expect us, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, to deal with this matter and to make sure that we all collectively
make an effort to ensure that this type of incident does not happen again.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I just wanted to add a few words to this particular motion,
a motion in principle which we can support, and it is primarily because of
this. We have an allegation, a very strong allegation, that comments were put
to the member for Radisson Monday last, and those comments have been
substantiated by at least one other member, my colleague the member for Osborne
(Ms. McCormick), who also heard those particular comments. The matter was brought up in the Chamber, as
we all know. Those comments were
categorically denied. We have an
individual who feels that there has been a matter of privilege, based on her
ability to be able to represent her constituents, which I think has to be taken
seriously.
I believe that there is some merit, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
in terms of the committee doing what it can to try to resolve this matter. There are a couple of things that come to my
mind, such as the pulling of the tapes from Monday last. Even under the pulling of the tapes, I know
the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) had made mention that the interjection
mikes should have picked it up. Well, I
have been inside the Chamber when a number of comments are made, and members
will hear what those comments are. Quite
often, they will be called to account for those comments and in many cases will
stand up to apologize or to retract the comments that were said. Not in all cases do those words show up in
Hansard and ultimately be heard through the interjection mikes, so I think that
we do have to take this very seriously in the sense that we have two members of
the Legislative Assembly who have claimed to have heard what the Minister of
Energy and Mines said.
We have a minister who is categorically denying it, and by
sending it to the House, we have a better chance at trying to resolve the
issue. As the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) pointed out, there were other individuals who were in the committee at
the time, and anything that would seek further clarification to demonstrate one
way or the other, I think would be to the benefit of all members of the
Chamber, in the best interest of all.
* (2020)
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, much has been made of
the fact that the comments made during the proceedings of the Department of
Environment Estimates were not on the record.
Having witnessed the event, I can say that in fact the comments were
made while the Minister of Energy and Mines was at the table. The presence of nonparticipating members at
the table in the Estimates debate is clearly oriented to a goal of
intimidation. The question is this: How far are we prepared to let members go in
the name of intimidation?
I wish to put two statements on the record; firstly, I am
under no illusion that the problems and obstacles faced by women in this
Chamber will disappear no matter how this issue is resolved. Secondly, I think it is important to
recognize that women politicians have to answer to the same constituencies as
men do to get elected and re‑elected.
Public sentiment is clearly on the side of ensuring a standard which
promotes a courteous and respectful treatment of each other, and I support the
motion for referral to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I was not here the night in question, so I do not know who
said what to whom. I do know, however,
that there is nothing I can read that tells me how this conversation went or
did not go. I am intrigued by the
comments made by the member for Osborne.
I am intrigued by the comments made by the member for Radisson. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) has
indicated that things are a lot better in the House now than they used to
be. I shudder to think what they used to
be like.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I know that from time to time each
one of us in the House has had comments hurled at us that are, to say on the
kindest interpretation, meanspirited and cruel.
I have sat there and had things hurled at me that cut through to the
heart and hurt very deeply. I know that
other members of my caucus have experienced the same thing from members of the
official opposition and from members, less occasionally because maybe there are
less of them, of the second opposition party.
Those comments have been hurled back and forth across the
House since I became a member. I came in‑‑and
like the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski)‑‑with the view that I
was not going to sink to the depths of being as rude and cruel and everything
in my heckles as other people had been.
I held to that for, I think, about two months before I cracked and
entered into the heckling and the kinds of comments that are made in the House.
I noticed with deep regret the member for The Maples (Mr.
Kowalski) sitting in the front row of the third party two weeks ago screaming
like a banshee after he had vowed that he would not ever do that.
So I guess what I am saying is that I concur with the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) that the acrimony in the House is regrettable
and I would love‑‑love‑‑to see that end.
We have a rule that if we called to order on it every time
it came up in our own blue book of rules and procedures‑‑not
Beauchesne‑‑rules 42, 43, somewhere in there, that says you cannot
interrupt and you cannot do that type of thing in the House, and we never rise
and call it as a point of order.
Although I know that the greatest abuse of points of order
are used by members opposite who are on their feet constantly calling for a
point of order when they know full well that it is not a point of order they
are rising upon. They are abusing the
rules of the House by using a point of order to get some other message across
they know does not apply.
Frequently, the messages coming across are based upon
erroneous assumptions, known to be erroneous assumptions, a false premise
presented as fact and then arguments built upon the false premise in a way
designed to destroy the integrity of a people who have integrity in a cruel,
malicious and vicious way, and that is what we present to the public. The member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) is
correct in that.
The member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) should recognize that
sometimes comments hurled our way are as bad, if not worse, than anything she
has allegedly claimed to have had said to her in recent weeks. I suppose maybe when you are government you
just sit and let it roll off your back.
Maybe we should not. Maybe we
should be rising every single time something is said. I would be up all the time if that happened
to me.
I think the motion is out of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
and I look for you to rule on it appropriately.
I just felt those comments needed to be made, because it is very well
for us to rise up in self‑righteous indignation when perhaps we should‑‑as
the member for Thompson says (Mr. Ashton)‑‑look to our own
selves. That advice goes both ways.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): I tend to have a reasonable
amount of respect for the experience of the government House leader, the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), the official opposition. I think he, in his presentation just a few
moments ago, recognizes that this is a very tenuous matter of privilege
according to the rules of our Chamber.
It may well be another matter that he wishes to raise, but not a matter
of privilege.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am certainly not prepared to
enter into this debate except to put on the record officially that I and other
members were sitting immediately adjacent to the Minister of Energy and Mines
(Mr. Orchard) when this incident took place.
I categorically put on the record that the references made in this
resolution were not made by the Minister of Energy and Mines.
In saying this, I do not say that they may‑‑the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick)‑‑well
have heard a remark that is alluded to in this resolution, that may well
be. I cannot categorically say that that
remark was not expressed in the Chamber, I did not hear it, but I can
categorically, being the closest, put on the record it was not made by the
Minister of Energy and Mines.
So, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you have simply a genuine
dispute of the fact. But it is patently
wrong to put on the record a resolution of this kind that specifically singles
out a particular member for an alleged conduct and puts words in his mouth that
he in fact categorically denies and has immediate people closest to his
presence when they were allegedly made who categorically say that they were not
made. Now, I believe that is the ruling. The ruling is simply that this is not a
legitimate matter of privilege for the House and the rules committee to deal
with.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would just like to inform the honourable
members that under Citation 107, this committee cannot deal with a matter of
privilege. All matters of privilege are
dealt with by the House. What this
motion is doing is taking this, referring this motion to the House to be dealt
with by the Speaker. We do not deal with
whether it is in order or not; the Speaker will make that decision when it gets
to the House.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I also have a great
deal of respect for the skills you have demonstrated as Chair. You can certainly decide whether any issue,
any motion is in order or out of order.
I am suggesting to you this motion is out of order, and I look for a
ruling from you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister does not have a point
of order. I do not have the ability to
rule on a matter of privilege within this committee. Under Citation 107 of Beauchesne, we cannot
deal as a committee, or myself as a Chair, on whether or not the matter of
privilege is in order. The matter of
privilege has to be dealt with in the House.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would ask you to
seek further advice from your table officers, but I find it incomprehensible
that a Chair of a legislative committee cannot rule on the appropriateness or
inappropriateness of a matter raised. I
would like to be shown where you cannot rule in such a manner.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: If I may, for the honourable minister's
benefit, I will read Citation 107.
"Breaches of privilege in committee may be dealt with only by the
House itself on report from the committee.
Thus should a witness refuse to attend, or refuse to give evidence, the
committee must report the fact to the House for remedial action."
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government
House Leader): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a very
significant issue and one that carries a lot of gravity to it. The question of whether persons in the banter
and repartee that takes place in the House are attempting to intimidate people or
attempting to denigrate people in the process or not, I suppose is 99 percent
in the eye of the beholder. I, quite
frankly, find it objectionable that I am classified, for instance, by members
here in the debate this evening, that I would be lumped together along with
every other member of the House in imputing motives, if you will, as to why
banter and repartee take place in the House.
* (2030)
There is no question in anybody's mind that all of us
deserve a lesson, I suppose, to one degree or another with respect to what may
or may not seem to be a put‑down or in some degree denigrating to an
individual member of the House. I
suppose it is important that we have this discussion so that we all understand
and we all respect, to a greater degree perhaps than we have in the past, that
every member is an honourable member in the House.
I do not think for a second that the kind of repartee that
does take place is aimed particularly at trying to intimidate anybody or trying
to denigrate anybody in this process.
Since I have been here and since I have been involved, not just here but
in another chamber as well, comments and repartee do take place.
What is the goal here?
What is the intent? What do we
want to achieve collectively as members of the Legislature in this
process? I suspect in the first
instance, Mr. Deputy Chair, it is a recognition by all members that we ought to
be careful in terms of what we say and that innocent remarks given sometimes
are not received in the same manner in which they were given. I know from time to time that matters that
are intended to be humourous sometimes are taken in a different vein, but what
is the intent? What is the purpose? What do we want to achieve collectively as
members of the Legislature here? Is it to
sensitize ourselves collectively to the problems that may or may not occur in
the House, or is it to carry on with the‑‑I do not like to say
persecution‑‑but carry on with a process that ultimately may or may
not lead anywhere.
I think ultimately the process that we all want to be
involved in, the understanding I think that all of us need to have here is that
sometimes we make statements that are taken by those made to in a different
vein from which they were intended or may certainly be taken that way. But the process ultimately I think is a
learning process for all of us here, and I think we ought to maybe understand
that. I certainly hope that is the
purpose behind the member for Radisson's raising the issue again this evening,
that ultimately we need to collectively understand more appropriately the
feelings and how members sometimes take issues or understand statements that
are made in the House.
At the same time, to proceed hopefully not in a
meanspirited way, but to proceed further with this issue I do not know is
necessarily going to resolve a great deal, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. The raising of the issue, the discussion of
it amongst ourselves, the members voicing their opinions as to how they feel
certain statements and nicknames and whatever else you want to have come
forward in the House and in committee, how they feel about those circumstances,
I think serves to the benefit of every member of the House.
No one is innocent in this process. No one.
I have sat here for eight years and heard all kind of statements being
made either on the record or off the record, or picked up by the interjectory
mikes or not picked up, by members of the Legislature. If we were to rise on a point of privilege
each and every time one of those statements was made, Mr. Deputy Chair, we
would do nothing but that. We would not
do Estimates. We would not debate
bills. We would be simply meeting on points
of privilege and having discussions about points of privilege.
I suspect that what we have experienced to date in this
matter has been healthy I think and helpful in the overall process. To carry it further, Mr. Deputy Chair, I see
offers little I think in the way of education, in the way of understanding, in
the way of members collectively learning from this experience and hopefully for
the better.
I also suspect that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns),
with his long‑standing experience in the House, may well be right, that
what we have is a dispute over the facts and not a matter of privilege per se.
The member does not, in her motion, indicate how her
privilege was violated; she simply says that it was violated. So, Mr. Deputy Chair, I do not wish to
challenge your ruling, if the advice you have been given is that this matter
simply needs to be referred, but I suspect that any Chair of any Legislative
committee would have the right to determine if a motion is in order or
not. The question of privilege cannot be
decided by the committee, but the question of it being in order I suspect can
be decided by the Chair of the committee.
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have listened very
carefully to what has been said on this issue and specifically the motion that
has been put before the committee.
First of all, it would appear to me when I read the
preamble or the first part of the motion, that the motion in itself is
questionable, No. 1. As Chairperson of
the committee, you might want to pay very close attention to the actual wording
of the motion before you decide whether to allow the motion to in fact be dealt
with at this committee or whether you might want to rule it out of order.
Secondly, the term, and I quote from the motion, "she
needs a slap"‑‑the allegation as made by that term is
something that clearly astounds me, because I was sitting that day in the chair
that is now being occupied by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), and the
Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) sat right next to me, to my right,
when the reference was made as to whether the member had been taken to the
woodshed.
The term "taken to the woodshed" has clearly been
coined by her own Leader in the House and has been time and time again referred
to and pointed specifically at members such as myself when I was removed from
cabinet and referenced clearly that I was severely reprimanded in the
woodshed. That is recorded in Hansard.
I find it astounding that we now want to put on the record
that a member should be slapped when the term was never, is not anywhere
indicated, on the record and that we are allowing that kind of statement to be
included in a motion before this committee and allow that motion to stand and
be dealt with.
I would ask you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to give very
serious second thought before you allow this motion to be dealt with in this
committee.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I would like to thank all honourable members
for their words during this debate. It
is not that you are challenging my ruling.
I understand you are questioning of my ruling. It is not a ruling as such because we, within
this committee, cannot rule on a matter of privilege. That is what the honourable member is
bringing forward at this time, is a matter of privilege.
What we are dealing with is a very serious matter
here. The honourable member is bringing
forward a matter or privilege. This
committee is not able to deal with that matter or privilege. This committee can only refer that alleged
matter of privilege to the House. That
is what this motion is recommending we do.
Is the committee ready for the question?
* (2040)
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a motion that is
required to be voted on presumes you can either vote one way or the other, that
you can refer it or not refer it.
If, in fact, the committee is incapable of dealing with it,
then there should be no motion to vote at all.
The question should simply be referred without vote, unless there is
some ability for the committee to deal with it.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I am going to have to ask the advice of the
committee. Is the honourable House
leader challenging my ruling?
Mr. Ernst: I am asking a question, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, of you. If a motion cannot
be dealt with in the negative, then the matter should simply be referred,
period. There should be no vote. If, however, it is expected that there is a
vote and an ability to vote one way or the other, then, in fact, if the
committee chose to vote no, it would be, in your view, based on your ruling,
dealing with a matter of privilege.
Now alternately on the same point of order, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, the question then could arise, is the motion in order or not? Similarly, you can deal with the matter in
that way as well, I would assume.
Otherwise, the rules would say that the matter would simply be referred
to the House for consideration and being dealt with.
So the question is, do we vote on this matter or is it
simply referred? If we do vote on this
matter, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then I suspect that your earlier ruling may not
have been entirely accurate in dealing with the question of whether the matter
is in order.
Mr. Ashton: If I might be of some assistance, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, the provisions of Beauchesne in terms of parliamentary privilege
are clear. The committee does not have
jurisdiction in and as of itself to review matters of privilege and breaches of
privilege. However, when breaches of
privilege do occur, then the appropriate mechanism is for the committee to
refer to the House because the House has jurisdiction to deal with those
matters of privilege as they occur.
So what we are essentially doing here is deciding whether
this matter should be reported to the House.
Committee members have the option of voting yes on this motion or voting
no on this motion, on any component of the motion, but you are quite in order
in ruling that this matter is in order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because it
cites a specific citation by Beauchesne, Citation 107. What it does is refer the matter to the House,
and then the specifics of whether there is prima facie case of privilege will
then be dealt upon committee report in the House. So this matter is in order, and I would
suggest that if there is any disagreement on the motion, we put it to a vote.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Just to clarify it, I am not ruling this
matter in order or out of order. I have
not the ability to do that. As
Chairperson, this motion is being‑‑you are being asked whether you
want to refer this matter of privilege to the House.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, correct me if I am
not right. This matter was brought up in
the House. The Speaker ruled that this
committee should deal with it. Now you
are saying you are not going to deal with it, you want to throw it back to the
House to be dealt with. What kind of
revolving door system of rules have we got here?
At issue is, is the alleged statement, as many members
indeed more who are prepared to corroborate that was never made in the House,
very important? To that extent, it is a
question of the orderliness of the issue that is being raised. I am simply, again, and I will desist from
any further comment saying that by reference, by this committee's acceptance in
referencing the motion before us to the House acknowledges that what is
contained in the motion in fact did take place.
And that simply, Sir, did not take place.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Just to advise the honourable member, it is
the Speaker who will decide on whether or not this is a prima facie case for a
matter of privilege. The Speaker, when
he referred this matter back to this committee:
therefore, I am ruling that this matter is out of order as a matter of
privilege. The honourable member may,
however, wish to raise the matter in the Committee of Supply and the committee
could decide whether or not to report it to the House.
That is what we are doing.
We are dealing with the matter on whether we want to report it to the
House or not, and I have not the ability to rule it in order or out of order. We are referring it to the House. Is the committee ready for the question?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have before me a
motion. It says, I move. Motions, whether they be in the House or be
in committee, are ruled in order or out of order. The subject of the motion is not of
interest. It is whether the motion
itself is in order. Now, I might submit
to my honourable friend, that as Chairperson, that in introducing this in the
preamble to introducing the motion, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli)
indicated that there is no evidence of any statements as she alleges in making
the motion.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, what I think all honourable friends
have a responsibility to do, in fact it is part of the rules, is that if, in
fact, you have a matter of privilege, that your privileges have been abused
during the course of the House or the committee, it is the responsibility of
the member so offended to immediately raise that matter. I realize that my honourable friend one week
later is saying that she believes certain phraseologies were used, and it stems
from a committee meeting approximately seven days ago. The duty of the member for Radisson, if those
comments were made, was to raise them immediately and have them dealt with in
the committee immediately.
Such was not the case.
It was not raised that evening.
It was not raised the next day, as is the next earliest opportunity to
bring that matter before the House, where the House, Sir, can deal with a
matter of privilege which my honourable friend did finally bring before the
House on Wednesday, some two days later, not at the earliest opportunity of the
evening when she alleges this happened.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this motion is out of order. This motion does not have substance. This motion is based on the member who moved
its admission that the statement does not exist anywhere in the record of
Hansard. It has been collaborated that
it has not been said. I have indicated
for some time it was not said. Now, my
honourable friend, the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has brought up a motion
which has no substance, in fact, and is moving a matter of privilege one week
late which is not within the rules of the House. That is grounds by itself to have this motion
ruled out of order.
Now, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would say that the motion is
dealt with by this committee, and you, Sir, as Chair of this committee, should
rule the motion in order or out of order and the committee will decide whether
it is in order or out of order.
* (2050)
Mr. Ashton: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I
believe there is some confusion here.
You are not ruling whether this is a matter of privilege or not. Indeed, the Speaker in his ruling on Friday
said that the appropriate mechanism was for a report to come from the committee
and that would then be referred to the House, and then the House would decide,
in this case the Speaker would decide whether there is a prima facie case, and
then a motion is put to the House if indeed the Speaker decides it is a prima
facie case.
That is the normal procedure for a matter of
privilege. What this motion does is
exactly what the Speaker said should be done on Friday. It is the first opportunity since that
particular ruling, although any of the technical aspects of the matter of
privilege would be dealt with by the House itself. The committee has no jurisdiction to deal
with the matter of privilege, but the reason this mechanism is put in place is
to ensure that when breaches of privilege occur in committee there is some mechanism
by which they can be considered, and that mechanism if for the committee to
decide whether to report this matter, and Mr. Deputy Chairperson, for that to
be reported then to the House.
If the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) and any
other member of this committee wishes to oppose this matter being reported to
the House, they need do one thing and one thing only and that is vote against
this particular motion. I will be glad,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to debate the question of privilege. I would point out, by the way, there are
specific citations in Beauchesne, Citation 64, of comments that were made in a
particular case of an individual seated at his desk. These comments were the subject of a matter
of privilege, and in fact, the member at that time was summoned to the bar to
apologize, and that is outlined in Citation 64.
You know, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that is irrelevant at
this point in time. The member is
wishing that this matter be reported. It
is the first opportunity since last Friday, but we have no jurisdiction at this
committee to decide over the technical nature of it. The point is, it should be referred to the
House which is the appropriate mechanism, and I would suggest we get on with
it, have a vote and decide whether this matter be reported. That is the appropriate way to proceed. Question.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there any further debate? Is the committee ready for the question? The question before the committee, moved by
the honourable member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli),
THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr.
Orchard) of Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply, indicating
"she needs a slap," that violated my privileges as a member of the
Legislature be reported to the House and that, in accordance with the provisions
of Beauchesne Citation 107, this committee recommend that this matter be
referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Voice Vote
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The motion is defeated.
Formal Vote
Mr. Ashton: I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is there a second member to request the‑‑the
honourable member for Radisson seconds it.
We shall recess and go to the Chamber for a counted vote.
The committee recessed at 8:54 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 9:36 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This section of the Committee of
Supply will be considering the Estimates for the Status of Women. Does the honourable Minister responsible for
the Status of Women have an opening statement?
Mrs. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister responsible for the Status of Women): Mr. Deputy Chair, it is my pleasure to
introduce the Estimates for the Department of the Status of Women for the 1994‑95
fiscal year. As Minister responsible for
the Status of Women, I would like to outline the accomplishments of the
department during the past year and to present some of the goals and objectives
for the coming year.
The department includes both the Manitoba Women's Advisory
Council and the Manitoba Women's Directorate, each with an important role to
play in the enhancement of the status of women in Manitoba. The advisory council is an arm's length body
whose members are appointed by the government to represent the different
geographical regions of the province.
Council presents to government the concerns of women in the community
and advises government on these issues.
Working to meet its goal and mandate of enhancing the
status of Manitoba women, the advisory council has achieved the following. In response to the overwhelmingly positive
response by Manitobans, council updated and reprinted the handbook "Just
Me and the Kids" in consultation with women's organizations and agencies,
which addresses the issues and concerns of single parenting. This edition, under the title "Parenting
on Your Own: A Handbook for One‑Parent Families" has been dedicated
in commemoration of the International Year of the Family.
In November 1993 the Manitoba Women's Advisory Council in
partnership with the Junior League of Winnipeg and the Manitoba Women's
Institute held a conference entitled "Damsels in Distress: A Manitoba
Sequel". The 251 delegates in
attendance from across Manitoba explored strategies for empowering young women
to meet and to accept the challenges and opportunities of today's world. A healthy lifestyle, positive self‑image
and education and career planning for young women were the themes explored in
detail by conference delegates, speakers and facilitators.
Council continued to monitor health issues such as the new
reproductive technologies, breast cancer, obstetrical services and others. Council was among those who brought to the
attention of the Minister of Health the need for enhanced mammography service
in rural Manitoba. As a result, in
October 1993 the government announced a breast screening program with centres
in Winnipeg, Brandon and Thompson to offer regular screening for women between
50 and 70 years of age.
As a member of the provincial government's Task Force on
Midwifery, the advisory council presented a number of recommendations to the
government. The task force, chaired by
Dr. Patricia Kaufert of the University of Manitoba, was made up of community
and government representatives and organizations such as the College of
Physicians and Surgeons, the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the
Faculty of Nursing, the Women's Health Clinic and the Society of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists of Canada.
The report of the task force was released on May 5, 1994,
when the Minister of Health announced the establishment of a Midwifery
Implementation Council which will oversee the implementation of the
recommendations of the report. In
response to overwhelmingly positive comments from the public about its
collection of resource materials, council continues to develop its reference
library. Increasing numbers of students
are accessing council library materials and are requesting research guidance
and support. Council continued to make
photocopying and mailing assistance and the use of its board room available to
nonprofit women's organizations. Council
looks forward to another productive year.
In keeping with its mandate, council will continue to distribute and
make information available to Manitobans.
In addition to work done by Manitoba Women's Advisory
Council, the Women's Directorate works to ensure that government programs have
addressed the needs and concerns of women.
The directorate carries out its mandate through the establishment of
partnerships with other departments of government, other jurisdictions across
Canada, community groups and other external organizations. The directorate is not involved in the direct
delivery of services.
* (2140)
At this time, I would like to tell you about an important
relationship which has developed between the Women's Directorate and a major
employer in our province, Eaton's of Canada.
In October 1993, Eaton's stores across the country highlighted the contributions
of Canadian women during Women's History Month.
In developing the Winnipeg Salute to Women's History, Eaton's approached
the Women's Directorate, and together they developed a tribute to Canadian
women that I understand was the best in Canada.
Eaton's and the directorate have continued their partnership working
together to celebrate the International Year of the Family and International
Women's Day. Governments, individuals
and business all have roles to play in promoting women's full participation in
all aspects of Manitoba life, and I am pleased that Eaton's has championed the
women of our province.
The Rural Child Care Registry, also a result of a
directorate partnership, continues its operation in rural Manitoba. Pilot projects are currently underway in nine
communities across Manitoba. The
directorate continued to represent Manitoba as a lead jurisdiction of the
Federal/Provincial Territorial Co‑ordinating Committee for the Status of
Women on gender equity in the justice system.
Jurisdictions continue to monitor progress towards the achievement of
equality within their justice systems.
This item will continue to be an important agenda item for all ministers
responsible for the Status of Women across the country.
As Minister responsible for the Status of Women and
Attorney General of Manitoba, the issue of violence is a priority one for
me. This government continues its strong
commitment to the policy of zero tolerance.
Every means available is being utilized so that the best possible
service is provided on family violence cases.
Supports for victims and abusers have been enhanced. The Women's Advocacy Program has seen its
staffing almost double, while resources for counselling male abusers have been
substantially increased.
The government will address the problem of youth violence
and crime by acting on a nine‑point action plan developed as a result of
the Summit on Youth Violence and Crime.
The directorate has worked hard to address issues surrounding violence
against women. The directorate actively
participates on government Family Violence Court Implementation Review
Committee and the Internal Domestic Violence Review Implementation Committee
through its representation on these very important committees.
The directorate also co‑ordinated the province's
response to the federal government on the recommendations of the report of the
national panel on violence against women.
The directorate partnered with Winnipeg School Division No.
1 to co‑sponsor a school‑based antiviolence program held on April
7. This program, developed and presented
by the London Family Court Clinic of Ontario, is a pilot program to train
teachers to teach antiviolence curricula in the schools. This workshop is one of eight workshops which
the London Family Court Clinic is conducting across Canada to familiarize
schools and community groups with this program.
As Minister responsible for the Status of Women and
Attorney General the issues of violence against women and youth violence will
continue to be a priority for me personally.
This government will continue its tough stance on violence, a stance
necessary to ensure the safety of all Manitoba citizens.
In addition to its research and analysis function that it
performs within government, the directorate provides an outreach function to
the women of Manitoba. The outreach unit
provides a joint function on behalf of both the Manitoba Women's Directorate
and the Manitoba Seniors Directorate.
The outreach staff has been a source of information referral and support
services to women and seniors groups as well as to individual women and seniors
throughout the province. Members of the
outreach staff are based in Portage la Prairie, Thompson and Winnipeg to ensure
a truly province‑wide service.
Staff at the unit have reached out to a number of rural and northern
communities including Cross Lake, Snow Lake, Cranberry Portage, Russell, Carman
and Oak Bluff to name a few.
A toll‑free women's information line has been
established in order to provide women from any part of the province with easily
accessible information on programs and services within government and the
community. In support of this initiative
the Women's Directorate is developing an extensive database of government and
community‑based programs and services.
Information capabilities will include retrieval according to specific
concerns and according to geographic regions of the province. Information gathering for the databases will
be ongoing for update on a regular basis.
In order to keep up with the steadily increasing demand for
speakers on a variety of topics of interest to young girls and women the
directorate established a Speakers' Bureau which includes speakers from within
government, the private sector and the community. The bureau provides community groups and
other interested organizations with knowledgeable speakers for their functions.
During the past year two expanded issues of the popular
About Women newsletter were produced and distributed to interested Manitoba
women. In both issues a new feature
entitled Profiles on Women was included.
Several prominent, successful Manitoba women have been profiled through
this feature as a tribute to the contributions of all Manitoba women. The directorate will continue profiling the
successes of Manitoba women in future issues of About Women through this
ongoing feature.
Manitoba Status of Women continues to work hard towards
fulfillment of its mandate which is to promote and to enhance the status of
women as well as women's full equality.
I am very proud of the successes of both the Manitoba Women's Advisory
Council and the Manitoba Women's Directorate, and during the coming year I am
confident that both organizations will continue their work to ensure equal
opportunities and equal participation for Manitoba women in all aspects of our
society.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister for those
comments. Does the official opposition
critic, the honourable member for Wellington, have any opening comments?
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Deputy Chair, no, I will ask my questions
in due course, but I think it more appropriate to actually get into the
discussion rather than any opening statements.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the critic from the official
opposition for that. Does the critic for
the second opposition party, the honourable member for Osborne, have an opening
statement?
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, just a brief one. I am interested to learn about the workings
of the advisory council and the Women's Directorate, and in my questioning I am
going to be asking the minister for more detail on what issues have been raised
by the advisory council, what advice was given and what action was taken. There are issues relating to the health and
well‑being of women which were not on her list of issues that were
raised, and I will be asking detailed questions in that area.
As well, with respect to the Women's Directorate and the
work done to monitor government programs, I am interested in exploring issues
of cutbacks in social assistance and the functioning of the Maintenance
Enforcement Program, home care cutbacks and other issues to determine whether
the Women's Directorate has in fact assessed the impacts of some of these
activities or these initiatives on women.
With that, we will turn to the questions.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the critic for the second opposition
party. At this time we invite the
minister's staff to join us at the table.
We ask that the minister introduce her staff present. We are on page 142 and pages 14‑15 in
your Supplementary.
Mrs. Vodrey: It gives me pleasure to introduce to you
Theresa Harvey, who is the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Women's
Directorate; Ruth Mitchell, who is the manager of the policy area; Olivia
Flynn, who is the executive director of the advisory council; and Betty
Nordrum, who is a policy analyst for the advisory council.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the minister. Page 142, is it the will of the committee
that we deal with it as a whole, or do we want to deal with it line by
line? What is the will of the committee?
[interjection] Deal with it as a whole?
Okay, then we will pass it all as one item.
* (2150)
Ms. Barrett: Under the Activity Identification for the
advisory council, there are three general categories: One is advise the government; second is
consult with women and women's organizations; and the third is work in
partnership. I will be asking the
minister to expand on those three areas.
Number one, could she give us some detail or an outline of how the
Women's Advisory Council actually advises the government, through what
processes? How does the advisory council
actually do its work?
Mrs. Vodrey: Issues are presented to council in several
ways, first of all, through members of council in their regions who bring
issues to the council meeting, also through the chairperson, by women and
Manitobans who write letters expressing their concerns, by women and Manitobans
who visit the advisory council office in search of ways to deal with various
situations, by women and Manitobans who telephone the advisory council offices
in search of ways in which to deal with various situations, and by women who
request and are invited to make presentations of issues at the council
meetings.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister tell us how often the
advisory council meets, where the advisory council meets and the regional
representation of the members of the advisory council?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the council is to
meet approximately six times a year.
Representation on the council is from parts of Manitoba, such as Portage
la Prairie, Brandon, Norway House, Bagot, Thompson, Stonewall and Winnipeg.
Ms. Barrett: Are there any vacancies on the advisory
council at this time?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I neglected in my
other answer to say that meetings are also held in Winnipeg, Brandon and
Portage la Prairie, in terms of where meetings are held.
The council can have up to 18 members. It has to have a minimum of eight
members. There are currently 11 members.
Ms. Barrett: The second area of activity is consultation
with women and women's organizations throughout the province and representing
various communities within Manitoba. Can
the minister expand on what has been, over the last year, meant by
"consultation"? With whom has
the advisory council consulted, and around which issues?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the advisory council
serves as a resource to women's organizations in a variety of ways, such as
reviewing educational materials for use in training workshops, serving as
resource persons on committees, and council has also played a major role in
working with women's organizations such as resource persons on conference
planning committees.
The following are some of the organizations with which the
advisory council has worked in these capacities: the Northern Women's Resource Centre, the
Women's Health Network, Family Dispute Services. The council in this case reviewed a standards
manual for women's shelters in Manitoba.
They have also worked with the Group Against Pornography or
GAP; the Women's Health Network; the Independent Living Resource Centre; the
Association of Women's Shelters; Women's Forum of the Winnipeg Film Group;
Business and Professional Women's Club of Winnipeg; and the Community Legal
Education Association; also the Manitoba Telephone System retraining for women
in call management services, including the use of the blocking feature; and
also alternatives to end violence against women's educational committee.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The advisory council has also provided assistance with
mailing. It has a policy of assisting
nonprofit women's organizations with mailing up to a maximum of 250 items at 43
cents each or the equivalent per year.
During '93‑94, the advisory council was able to
assist the following organizations:
Women's World Finance; Single Parent Resource Centre; Manitoba
Traditional Midwives Collective, Thompson Action Committee on the Status of
Women; Women in Second‑Stage Housing; Manitoba Action Committee on the Status
of Women; Winnipeg Council of Women; Alpha House; Altrusa International of
Winnipeg; International Women's Day committee; Women's Health Research
Foundation; Children's Home of Winnipeg, and Women Healing for Change.
There is also a list of groups that have received
assistance in photocopying, and also they have provided the use of their board
room as well.
Ms. Barrett: When the minister was talking about the
groups that the council had met with, and I did not get all of them, but for
example, the Group Against Pornography, the Women's Health Network, and the
Association of Women's Shelters, can the minister explain what was the purpose
of those meetings or how the council was able to work with those particular
groups?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the Group Against
Pornography or GAP, it was work with GAP and the Manitoba Telephone System to
make sure that the 900 numbers were not freely available in Manitoba. The Women's Health Network was to work on the
midwifery recommendations, and the Association of Women's Shelters was, I am
told, a consultation process, but details of the information I will have to
undertake to get for the member.
Ms. Barrett: The final Activity Identification is: working in partnership with women's
organizations to support and facilitate community activities aimed at improving
the status of women.
The minister in her opening remarks talked about several
things that had happened last year, the Just Me and the Kids printing, the
Damsels in Distress conference, monitoring of health issues such as the
enhanced mammography services, the midwifery recommendations and the reference
library. Are there other examples of the
working in partnership with women's organizations that were undertaken by the
advisory council?
* (2200)
Mrs. Vodrey: The projects that I spoke about in my opening
remarks were the key project undertakings which were of a larger nature. The work ongoing otherwise was the work in
terms of ongoing consultation or something specific with that group as opposed
to producing a booklet or putting on a conference which was what was named in
my opening remarks.
Ms. Barrett: There are a number of expected results this
year for the advisory council and I would like to ask some questions about some
more detail about what is expected and also what happened this last year. In particular, the second result is
presenting recommendations by council to the government regarding issues
relating to the Status of Women. I
assume that some of those issues were reported on by the minister in her
opening remarks.
I am wondering if there were any additional recommendations
of an official or unofficial nature prepared by the advisory council to
government, and also what recommendations, what issues the minister believes will
be issues of concern for the advisory council this year, if she can look ahead.
Mrs. Vodrey: In response to presentations made to council,
council reviews information and makes recommendations to government.
In 1993‑94, council presented the following
recommendations: In Health, regarding
the availability of mammagraphic examinations in rural Manitoba; in the area of
pornography, regarding the need to ensure continued application of the Stentor
Program, that is the name of the program, S‑T‑E‑N‑T‑O‑R,
Stentor Program Content Guidelines, which prohibits sponsors from offering
sexually explicit programming through the 900 numbers.
There had been some concern that Manitobans could loose the
protection of these guidelines after the Manitoba Telephone System comes under
the regulatory control of CRTC. As a
result of the efforts of the advisory council, council was credited by the
Manitoba Telephone System with playing a major role in influencing public
policy in their efforts to prevent sponsors from offering sexually explicit
programming through the 900 number service.
In the area of Justice:
The need for stated guidelines on handling cases of criminal harassment
and stalking to be clarified and to be also reinforced. The need for the women's community to be
informed and invited to participate in justice issues with respect to gun
control. The need for the across‑the‑board
ban on the nonmilitary use of the large‑capacity magazines, and that no
exemptions be granted for the purposes of legitimate competition, and that in
fact occurred.
Also, that in response to recommendations on judicial
discipline, prepared by the Law Reform Commission, the advisory council
recommended that a clear definition be put in place which plainly states when
and under what conditions the Judicial Council is convened and when it is not,
and as the member knows, there is now a bill before the House.
The advisory council further endorsed the recommendation of
the Law Reform Commission to include three nonlawyers as members of the
Judicial Council. The advisory council
also had some concern on initial recommendations that there be out‑of‑province
judges on the Judicial Council, a concern regarding the costs, but now that has
been worked out through Justice that their salaries and so on would continue to
paid by their home jurisdictions.
In the area of education, the advisory council wrote to the
Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) in support of recommendations contained in
the report, Needs Assessment of Newcomer Black Youths and Families, and
recommended that Manitoba Education and Training define a policy standard and
require that all school divisions establish antiracism programs in each school,
and that the inclusion of cross‑cultural education and awareness in the
curriculum for teacher training be a requirement, and that such a standard be
supported and maintained and promoted.
Ms. Barrett: In the area of pornography or that general
area, I am wondering if the council would look at an issue that has been
brought before the House and that the Minister responsible for the Telephone
System (Mr. Findlay) said he would undertake to look at, which is the issue of
the adult video stores being allowed to advertise with display advertising in
the Yellow Pages. Is this an issue that
the advisory council would undertake to make a recommendation to the government
on and if so, how would one go about getting that issue raised, or any other
issue raised, before the advisory council?
Mrs. Vodrey: My understanding is that the minister
responsible has given an undertaking in that area and that individual is the
one charged with the responsibility, and my understanding is he has given an
undertaking in that area. In a more
general case where people do have concerns which they would like the advisory
council to look at, or at least to explore as an issue, then that can be done
by a letter for any issue.
Ms. Barrett: So if GAP or even a member of the Legislative
Assembly wanted to ask the council to look at a particular issue, that would be
an acceptable thing to have as an undertaking?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, that is correct.
Ms. Barrett: In the area of education, there were some
recommendations made. The minister in
her earlier answer under Needs Assessment‑‑forgive me, my notes are
sketchy‑‑for, I believe it is Newcomer Black Youths and Families,
antiracism programs in schools and cross‑cultural training for teachers,
these were, I understand, recommendations made by the advisory council to the,
I would assume, Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr.
Gilleshammer) in the first place and the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) in
the latter two cases. Can the minister
tell us what the status is of those recommendations?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the recommendations
were made by a member of the advisory council to the Minister of Education. That member also brought these
recommendations to council who were supportive of the concept. At the moment I am not able to tell you what
the status is of those recommendations other than to say that they have been
raised for consideration to the Minister of Education.
* (2210)
Ms. Barrett: This raises another more general
question. The advisory council or
members of the advisory council make recommendations to ministers or
government, how are those recommendations followed up? Is there a process in place by the advisory
council where, if they do not hear from the minister or do not see some action
taking place on a recommendation, they contact the minister after a period of
time and say, what is the status of these recommendations, or is it just left
to the minister without any follow‑up?
Mrs. Vodrey: The advisory council is, as its name
suggests, advisory to government. It is
able to make recommendations which supports concepts or a specific action and
that may come again from citizens who bring it to the council, from council
members themselves, and the council then will make a recommendation of
support. But council recognizes in its
advisory capacity to government, the government then has to make a
determination as to whether or not it is able to implement that recommendation
at this time or within the scope of other initiatives.
The chairperson of the advisory council also has meetings
with the Minister responsible for the Status of Women. These issues can be raised again with that minister
with the suggestion or recommendation that that minister look to follow up with
colleagues about the status of issues which have been raised over the past
period of time.
Ms. Barrett: So the basic follow‑up procedure is in
the meetings between the chair of the advisory council and the Minister
responsible for the Status of Women, and the chair then will raise issues or
has an opportunity to raise issues that may not have been responded to
adequately at least to the council's satisfaction. Is that an accurate process?
Mrs. Vodrey: Fairly accurate in that the council may
simply be asking for a status report on exactly what is happening in terms of
those recommendations. The answer may be
that they are in process, the answer may be that they are within initiatives of
government. So sometimes detailed
information is not able to be provided back because it is contained in an
initiative of government which may not be announced yet; however, that is the
way that it has worked in that the minister responsible then undertakes to look
into the status of initiatives.
Ms. Barrett: Is that a regular part of the meetings of the
advisory council, a report on the status of recommendations that have gone
forward to government, or is it more ad hoc in that the chair will ask the
minister at their meetings?
Mrs. Vodrey: The recommendations to government are
formally recorded in the minutes of the meeting and then following that, it is
then council which may decide to check on the status as they review minutes of
the meeting in future meetings, or they may decide that they would like to send
a second letter which, again, would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to ask a question again about
one of the Expected Results areas, which is the examination of strategies on
the enhancement of skill development for women and the communication of this
information to women's organizations.
Can the minister explain what some of those skill development
enhancement areas are, and how they anticipate the communication of those
strategies?
Mrs. Vodrey: This refers to the contents of the
publication, "Take that Seat," and it is putting out the information
and also encouragement for women to enter into political life or to take
positions on boards and commissions. The
information is given out through the booklet, "Take that Seat." The advisory council is also looking at
putting out a newsletter. The
information is also given out through telephone conversations and in one‑to‑one
consultations with women.
Ms. Barrett: I think, finally, can the minister tell us
now what her understanding is, at this point, of the existing equality issues
and on emerging priorities of women that is an item under Expected
Results? What are some of the areas that
are being worked on currently and that the advisory council thinks probably
will be important issues in the next year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the issues which the
advisory council sees being important in the coming year are the education and
training issues dealing particularly in the area of their relationship to
economic independence. Secondly,
following the conference, "Damsels in Distress: A Manitoba Sequel", there have been a
number of requests from community groups and from educators in particular to
put on another conference, and within that conference, there would be looked
for a large representation of young women.
I understand a number of teachers have said that they would like to bring
young women students with them. Then
there is the continuing issue of concern, and that is the issue of violence
against women.
In addition, there are two other issues which have also
become quite important, the issue of the breast implants and also the issue of
child support and what the Supreme Court may decide in the case before it.
* (2220)
Ms. Barrett: Just a question‑‑the issue of
breast implants is one that I am quite concerned about. What does the council see as its role in
dealing with this issue? How can it make
its presence felt?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the advisory council
sees their role as making sure information is available to women, also
monitoring the lawsuits which are in progress, also making sure that there is information
about the supports available to women, supports in the area of health care and
also support in the area of legal support.
Ms. Barrett: How does the council anticipate being able to
provide these legal and informational supports?
Are they going to be reactive or proactive in this regard?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed the council would see its role
as supportive. At the moment, that may
appear to be reactive in that they are looking at what the needs are, what are
the needs that women are expressing, and how can they begin to meet some of
those needs which are, by and large, informational?
So at the moment, they see themselves as moving in concert
or collaterally with the issue.
Ms. Barrett: Has the council consulted with any of the
organizations that are more directly involved with this issue, such as the I
Know Network and the Women's Health Clinic?
Mrs. Vodrey: The advisory council has consulted with the
Women's Health Clinic. When we begin to
discuss the directorate, there will be other information available from the
directorate.
Ms. McCormick: In preparation for tonight I sat down and
made a list of the issues with which I have had varying levels of dialogue with
individuals and groups of women since I was elected in September. I would like to ask the minister with respect
to whether or not the advisory council discussed or gave advice on these issues
of concern to women. I am pleased to say
that some of them have been identified, and I will just knock them off my list
and I will not even ask any questions on them.
The first has been touched on, and that is the issue of
breast implants. I would like to know,
though, was the impact of women on the June 17 deadline for participation in
the class‑action suit in the United States regarding breast implants
discussed or was advice given to the government in this area?
Mrs. Vodrey: The advisory council is interested in asking
that the government might consider a funding proposal from the Women's Health
Clinic to set up a primary care program for women with breast implants. However, this has not been formally submitted
to government yet. So it is not a
proposal sitting with the Minister of Health at this point, but there is a
proposal which they were interested in.
They also were interested that the Manitoba government
become a claimant and opt out of the American MDL class‑action lawsuit on
breast implants.
I am told that the advisory council can provide further
information later. We do not have
further information at this time. I
would also just remind the committee that this is one of these times where I
cannot split myself in two. As Attorney
General, I have not made any comments on that.
It is a legal action taking place in another jurisdiction. As the chief prosecutor, I am not able to
speak about it, and yet I understand the concerns from the Status of
Women. So I have tried through the
directorate, and making sure the advisory council is also able to consider this
information, to make sure that we have been able to be active, and yet I have
had to be very careful about any public statements in terms of the lawsuit.
Ms. McCormick: I want to make it clear that the order in
which I am putting these issues forward are not necessarily a prioritized
one. It just happens to be the result of
some rather convoluted thought processes.
The next one is the use of Prozac in treating patients with
depression. There has been some
considerable concern that women are not always well represented in drug
trials. I am wondering if there has been
any discussion or advice given to the government on the status of Prozac.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed, no, none has been given.
Ms. McCormick: The next area relates to the broader issue of
violence against women, which you have addressed in some ways.
The question that is primary before the Coalition on
Violence Against Women right now is the issue of double charging and the impact
of an aggressive stance by the police, where a woman in the name of defending
herself against physical injury may in fact inflict a visible injury on a
person who has assaulted her. Has the
advisory council discussed or given advice on the issue of double charging?
Mrs. Vodrey: No advice has been received from the advisory
council in that area, though the member knows now that there has been a
directive to Crown attorneys from the Justice side.
Ms. McCormick: The next area is the access of women to child
care resources. Did the advisory council
discuss or give advice on the cap on the number of subsidized daycare spaces
and the freeze on the creation of new child care spaces?
* (2230)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that council has not given
advice on a specific issue in relation to child care but has spoken about the
issue broadly in terms of child care being a need and also in support of the
need.
Also, I am informed that both the advisory council and the directorate
attended the annual meeting of the Coalition on Child Care in order to make
sure that government was well aware of the issues which were being raised in
that forum.
Ms. McCormick: The next area is with respect to social
assistance. It was apparent at the
beginning that the cutbacks which were aimed at single people on provincial
assistance were done in such a way as to spare single parents and their
children or families, but recently, we have learned of a cutback on the
eligibility for the $150 special needs fund, which at one point in time was
taken as a given and now appears to be no longer widely available.
Has or would the advisory council intend to address the
impact of the constraining of the $150 special needs and the impact of that on
women and their children?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the advisory council has
not discussed that specific issue that the member raised. However, they do discuss issues relating to
single parenting more broadly, and in 1991, I am informed, they did make a
report on single‑parent families and now are very interested in the
single‑parent initiative that the Department of Family Services and the
federal government are jointly working on.
I understand there have been consultations around the province on this
particular initiative.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the next area is the
cutbacks in foster care rates for extended‑family foster care. This is expected to have a significant
impact, to be felt most particularly by native women who care for children of
extended‑family members. Did the
advisory council discuss or give advice on that issue?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the council has had no
concerns expressed to them directly to date so far.
Ms. McCormick: You have spoken of the tax treatment of child
support payments as being an issue that you will be monitoring in a future
way. That being said, has the advisory
council discussed or given advice on the issue of the Maintenance Enforcement
Program's success in getting child support payments to custodial parents in a
timely fashion?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the advisory council will be
active in the round table part of the task force which is being organized by
the federal minister on child tax support.
At that time, issues relating to Maintenance Enforcement will be raised.
Ms. McCormick: The next area is with respect to chronic
fatigue syndrome. Many of us wore green
ribbons on the day on which attention was brought to this disease. Did the advisory council discuss or give
advice on chronic fatigue syndrome, given that many who are affected are those
who work in female‑dominated professions such as teaching, nursing and
child care?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I am informed, no,
that issue has not been discussed.
Ms. McCormick: The next area is with respect to the special
needs of women in their educational and skill development aspects of their
lives. Did the advisory council discuss
or give advice to government on the issue of cutbacks to the funding of the
ACCESS program, given that many of the people who are participating in that are
not only women but are also single parents.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that council did not deal with
that issue this year.
Ms. McCormick: Has the advisory council undertaken any
initiatives to address the special needs of women in nontraditional occupations
or in trades training?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the advisory council has been
distributing information on the nontraditional training that is available to
women, that they also have been monitoring what training is available and that
has been the focus of their work so far.
Ms. McCormick: Another area which actually was my first
introduction to the politics of cutbacks and the impact on women was in the
area of the Home Care cutbacks. The
belief is widely held that the impact of Home Care cutbacks in the provision of
support to seniors in their homes in fact transfers responsibility onto the
adult children of seniors, and that this burden is likely to be most borne by
women who will function as caregivers to their parents and parents‑in‑law,
often at the expense of the time and resources available to give their own
children.
Has the advisory council discussed or given advice on the
issues of Manitoba's Home Care program?
* (2240)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed no.
Ms. McCormick: We continue to discuss the issues of problems
of sexism in Manitoba's workplaces. Did
the advisory council discuss or give advice on the issue of sexism and sexual harassment
of women in workplaces?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the council has provided
information to callers and also has provided referrals to callers who have
called on the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace.
Ms. McCormick: I noted with interest that when the debate
with respect to the treatment of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) first
hit the newspapers, the Manitoba Action Committee on the Status of Women was
fairly quick to speak out with respect to importance of gender issues and the
treatment of women in workplaces.
Would it have been appropriate for either the Women's
Advisory Council or the Women's Directorate to take a position and speak
publicly on this issue?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. I would ask the honourable member to choose
her subject matter very carefully. This
matter that the honourable member is bringing forward at this time is before
the Speaker for a ruling, so if we could just leave that matter alone at this
time.
Ms. McCormick: I will move then to the issues relating to
part‑time work and minimum wage.
Given that many women rely on nonstandard employment for their incomes,
has the advisory council discussed or given advice to government on issues
relating to part‑time work and minimum wage?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed the
council has not given that advice in this past year.
Ms. McCormick: I am about to wrap up here. Finally, much attention has been given to
Manitoba's dubious distinction of being the child poverty capital of Canada,
the province with the highest rates for adolescent pregnancies, for female‑headed
single parents, and for the highest rates of child welfare apprehensions. Have any of these topics been discussed by
the advisory council, or has advice been given to the government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am informed that a number
of these topics were covered at the November conference of "Damsels in
Distress: A Manitoba Sequel," and
that the advisory council is interested in the concerns for single
parents. They do provide information on
how to get access where individuals have need, how to access the system to try
and meet that need. They do that through
one‑on‑one discussions and also telephone conversations. They also attempt to provide referrals so
that the individual can get to the point where they need to be rather than just
trying to find it by themselves.
Ms. McCormick: To the minister, is there a way of compiling
the inquiries which come in so that a composite of the issues being brought
forward and which the advisory council's office is being requested to respond
to have a way of translating into some kind of priority setting for
initiatives?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the council does keep a list
and a way to keep track of the kinds of concerns which are raised either by
phone conversation or by walk‑in individuals. However, the priorities of the council's work
are set by the council members. Council
members may choose the priorities which have shown themselves in terms of
inquiries, or they may choose priorities which are based on areas which they
represent and other priorities which council decides to adopt.
Ms. McCormick: One final question, I note that you have as
part of your Activity Identification the issue of women with disabilities. Has there been any special initiatives
conducted by the advisory council? Have
the special needs of women with disabilities been discussed, and has any advice
been given with respect to the breaking down of barriers for disabled
women? I am thinking specifically of the
issue of the Handi‑Transit cutbacks.
When I attended the demonstration, it appeared that there were a good
number of women who do rely on Handi‑Transit to get access to their lives
outside their homes and apartments.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am told that issues
relating to women, in particular with disabilities, are raised at every council
meeting, that the issue of the Handi‑Transit was raised specifically at a
council meeting. The staff were directed
to collect some information, and council will be reviewing that information.
Ms. Barrett: I would like to return to one of the issues
that the minister had said was being addressed this year, and that was
education and training as it relates to economic independence. I am wondering if the minister can expand a
bit on what that issue is and how it is going to play itself out.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that, for council, it has been
a focus on distributing information for single parents, that the initiative for
single parents seems to be coming very much connected with single parents
becoming employed where possible, that there is the initiative between the
federal and the provincial government.
That has been the focus for council, I am told.
Ms. Barrett: So this issue of education and training
leading to economic independence, which is a major concern for women in the
province, the way that is being played out by the advisory council at this
point is mainly as a distribution of information on current programs and
activities rather than any series of study and recommendation to the ministers,
say, of Family Services and Education and Training. It seems like a fairly narrow view of the
role of the advisory council in this very important area.
* (2250)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am told that in its 1991
report on single parents, which the advisory council prepared, that there were
recommendations for the Minister of Education and Training. The advisory council, I am told, also works
with women in the community to help them prepare resumes and also packages
which would assist them in finding employment.
So their work is not at this time research based. It has tended to be more practical, more
community focused, in one‑to‑one case work, where they have been
attempting to assist women to join the workforce.
Ms. Barrett: The 1991 report on single parents obviously
had recommendations to be followed. Has
the advisory council undertaken a regular follow‑up with the various
government departments on the recommendations of that report? If so, can the minister provide me with any
information on the status of those recommendations?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that following the 1991 report
there was a consultation on single parents in 1992. At that point there was a further
clarification of the issues. Following
that, we now have, which has been spanning '93‑94, the initiative for
single parents which the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) has been
leading and has been working in consultation with the federal government.
As the member knows, a lot of the training dollars are also
federal dollars, which would need to be made available. There is, at this point, uncertainty. We do not know yet what the new Liberal
federal government will be doing in terms of programs which tend to fund a
number of those individuals into programs.
Ms. Barrett: I just want to make a final comment, and I do
not want it to be interpreted as really a negative comment on the work of the
advisory council because I do know that these are women from all across the
province and they meet‑‑well, they meet every other month. There is an enormous amount of work to be
done, et cetera. I do think,
particularly in light of the 16 issues that the member for Osborne raised, many
of which were either not discussed by the advisory council or discussed only in
very broad terms, if I were to make a recommendation to the advisory council,
it would be that these issues and others are issues that are of immediate, long‑standing
and important concern to many of the women in the province, and they have
enormous political and social ramifications for the women and families in Manitoba. I would recommend and advise the advisory
council to maybe look at providing some advice to the government on these
issues.
The advisory council and the Status of Women ministry has
very little resources of its own, and one of the best things that it can do is
provide that advice and be one of the conduits, if you will, of issues that are
facing women today to the government. I
think that there is a list here that I would like to suggest the advisory
council look very seriously at.
Mrs. Vodrey: I understand the way that the member has made
her remarks. I believe the context she
wants to place them in is that there are a large number of issues which affect
women and which can be examined and would be helpful to have examined, but I
know she is not suggesting that I interfere as minister in any way. I know that she understands that the advisory
council is arm's length, and were it my effort to, for some other reason, reach
in and try and direct the work of the advisory council, that would certainly be
seen in a highly negative way. The
advisory council operates at arm's length, operates with its members of its
council who bring forward issues, who also receive issues, though. That was our starting point tonight, to say
issues can be raised by way of letter, by way of community meeting for the
consideration of the advisory council, and then they have to look at how they
do their work.
I would really like to be very careful to say in this
instance it seems useful to add to the number of issues which might be
considered because they are important ones.
However, I also offer the other side to acknowledge my own caution as
minister not to appear to be directing the advisory council because they are at
arm's length to government. They do
their work and offer advice to government, and I would not want to be seen as
being interfering.
I understand the comments being made as a number of issues
to be examined, and I believe the advisory council has accepted them in that
light.
Ms. Barrett: Just one final comment and I promise it will
be. Of course, I am very cognizant of
the need to have an arm's‑length organization such as this. I do, however, think that the asking for
advice can, I think, legitimately come from not only the community or issues
that are raised through the community to the members of the advisory council,
but I think that without jeopardizing that arm's‑length process,
ministers of the Crown can, through the Minister responsible for the Status of
Women, ask that there be advice given to them by the advisory council. I assume that advice process can go two ways
without jeopardizing the independence.
That basically is what I was saying.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, it can, again, always keeping in mind
that fine line of not wanting to appear to be directing the council because the
council represents the community. Where
I have other concerns or other issues, I have the ability to ask the
directorate for information also, but I understand the point. I just wanted to make sure it was on the record
that there was a recognition on my part of the issues as being important but a
recognition, also, of the arm's‑length relationship of the advisory
council to government.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(a) Manitoba Women's Advisory Council
(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $171,700‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $115,200‑‑pass.
Item 1.(b) Women's Directorate (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $528,700.
* (2300)
Ms. Barrett: There is a whole lot of information on the
Women's Directorate here, and I am not sure if I can get down to it all, but I
do have some questions, particularly in the results area, the area of
facilitating initiatives to promote the economic self‑sufficiency of
women. I am wondering if the minister
can expand on that Expected Results area.
Mrs. Vodrey: The directorate has undertaken a number of
partnerships, a number of partnerships in the area of education with school
guidance counsellors looking at the needs of young women. They also have been invited to put on a
workshop in the Faculty of Education at the University of Manitoba to look at
the educational and social issues of women to prepare teachers. The underlying issue has been that it is very
frequently an issue of socialization, and so the directorate has been working
with education to get at some of the socialization issues as early as possible.
They have also been doing an analysis of the 1991 census
looking at information relating to women to find factors that would contribute
to the economic inequality of women.
They also, back to education, partner with the A Cappella
Network, and they have been examining, again, socialization as one of the major
underlying issues and recognizing particularly that women have, by and large,
that competing issue of work and family and how they can devote the time and
the energy to work on both.
Ms. Barrett: So they are working with the Department of
Education at the University of Manitoba.
They are analyzing these 1991 census data and they are working with
something called the A Cappella Network?
Could the minister explain what the A Cappella Network is?
Mrs. Vodrey: The A Cappella Network‑‑I am told
they get their name, a cappella, from singing alone, being the meaning. The A Cappella Network is an action‑oriented
group of educators and government officials and it resulted from a conference
on socialization. Just so the record is
exactly correct, the workshop is with the faculty of education at the
University of Manitoba. I only say that
so there is no confusion with the Department of Education in government, that
it is the faculty of education at the University of Manitoba.
Ms. Barrett: It is my American background comes out every
once in a while.
The minister, in the Estimates book, talks about a
Speakers' Bureau and the minister mentioned that in her opening remarks that
includes government representatives, private sector representatives, and
community representatives. Can the
minister outline some of the particular issues that have been requested of the
Speakers' Bureau and numbers of engagements that have been undertaken by the
bureau?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the directorate gets
approximately 50 requests a year. The
main themes of the speaking engagements through the Speakers' Bureau are
education and training, women and work, women and economic equality.
Examples of some of the places where they have spoken: Atomic Energy of Canada; CMHC; they have
spoken at urban and rural high schools, the University of Winnipeg Department
of Sociology and Revenue Canada.
Ms. Barrett: As well, the minister talked earlier about
the Rural Child Care Safety Registry.
That is a pilot project that is currently involved in nine communities.
Can the minister give us an update? I frankly cannot remember what the minister
said about the role of the Women's Directorate in regard to the Rural Child
Care Safety Registry, if the minister could explain the connection between the
directorate and the registry.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that first of all the relationship
is that the directorate was the funder.
The directorate was approached by the Women's Institute and the
directorate provided funding of $15,000 through Lotteries disbursement.
The issue is that Manitobans who farm, and I know the
member knows this because we had debated it in the House, require child care at
very specific times of the year. So the
Rural Child Care Safety Registry was an innovative pilot project which was
established through a collaboration between the Manitoba Women's Institute and
the provincial departments of the Status of Women, Family Services and
Agriculture.
The evaluation of the pilot, which has only operated
through two harvests and is in its second seeding, is currently underway. The registries were established in nine
communities: Swan River, Glenella,
Minnedosa, Stonewall, Arborg, Riverton, Killarney, Gladstone, Virden, Winkler‑Morden.
Ms. Barrett: This is in its second seeding. I am assuming it will go through the third
harvest this fall. Is that then the end
of the pilot project?
* (2310)
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that the pilot project is in the
process of being evaluated by the Department of Women's Studies at the
University of Manitoba. It is hoped or
expected, I gather, that it will remain operational within these nine areas,
but at this point, it is difficult for me to say that that will specifically be
the case. However, I gather that that is
certainly what is being looked at at the moment. It will also be based on the evaluation in
each one of those areas.
Ms. Barrett: Members of my caucus have had discussions
with members of the government, particularly the Minister of Justice (Mrs.
Vodrey), regarding the outcome of pilot projects and what happens to pilot
projects upon completion of their being pilot projects. I am wondering if the minister has any sense
of what is anticipated to be the funding scheme, if you will, for these nine
communities and maybe more that might follow through, assuming of course that
the evaluation is positive, and it is hoped that this program will go ahead.
Is it anticipated that the government may participate in
ongoing funding of these projects or will it be such like other projects which
will be then asked to be funded outside of governmental funding?
Mrs. Vodrey: The project is owned by the Women's
Institute, and that was at their request.
That was not something which occurred subsequently.
The funding was to provide or to develop the
prototype. That prototype is now
there. It also was to explain and
provide support for what the intention of the Rural Child Care Safety Registry
was to be and what it was to accomplish.
So that has now been accomplished and, therefore, it is operational
because the prototype is there. The
registry is operating and, therefore, it is, I am told, not expected that it
requires ongoing funding especially in the amount that was given to develop the
prototype and to actually get it going.
So I am told that it is expected that these will continue
because they are now there; however, it again depends upon the evaluation and
whether or not people in the communities have found it to be useful and exactly
what they want.
Ms. Barrett: So what the minister is saying is that
because the prototype and the information to establish the Rural Child Care
Safety Registry process has been developed that the registry should be able to
be continued in, at the very least, these nine communities without any cost to
any level of government or community organization whatsoever. Is that accurate?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is what I am informed, that that is the
case. The registries are maintained at
the local Ag offices, so there is a specific place where there are prototypes
being developed, how work will be developed, and the concept has now been
spoken about and people know about it.
But, again, the evaluation has not been done yet, so we have to look at
the evaluation as well to see if it is exactly what the communities want.
Ms. Barrett: When does the minister anticipate that this
evaluation by the Department of Women's Studies will be concluded?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that Women's Studies tell us it
will be the fall.
Ms. Barrett: In the Rural Child Care Safety Registry
prototype, were there any training or basic standards established for people
who would put their names on the child care registry?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that arrangements were made with
individual farm families that the police departments were to provide the
security clearance and that then there were interviews with the farm family
between the individual and that farm family.
That is how they worked out what was required.
Ms. Barrett: So the police or the RCMP did do a security
clearance on every person whose name was on the child care registry.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, yes, that is our
understanding. To our knowledge, that is
what occurred.
Ms. Barrett: I have one other question to ask. I hope it is appropriate to ask it here
rather than in the advisory council, or I could have asked it, I guess, both places.
I would like to ask the minister to outline the process and
the rationale behind the putting together, if you will, of both the advisory
council and the Women's Directorate in their new offices.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me, first of all, dispel anything that
that question indicates around a putting together. There has been not a putting together. I gather that may have been a concern, that
there was an effort to somehow join or have the advisory council lose its
independence. That is absolutely false. That did not occur. That is not at all what happened. In fact, that has continued to be respected.
I can tell the member that in the previous location, the
rent was very high. It was very
expensive. It was expensive both for the
directorate, and it was expensive for the advisory council. This is a time in which there are very
difficult fiscal decisions, and government has tried to preserve as many
program dollars as possible to have money available to provide the service and
not just to provide an extremely large working environment, but we wanted to
make sure that there was a working environment provided which respected for
both the work that they did and also their separateness.
I can tell the member that the directorate and the advisory
council did move into their new premises on the 31st of May, '94. They are located across the hall from each
other. They have separate
entrances. They have separate reference
libraries. They maintain their functions
separately, as they did before. The
advisory council maintains its walk‑in area so that it can assist
community groups with Xeroxing and with postage, and there is the reference
library. There is also a small informal
meeting room in the area of the advisory council.
* (2320)
The directorate has its own separate area. It is not joined to the advisory council, and
it continues its work. So one is located
at 107‑175 Carlton, and one is located at 100‑175 Carlton. In choosing this location, and we did look at
several and tried to find the one that would provide the greatest advantage to
both the directorate and the advisory council.
The new premises offer significant improvements in its
present location. First of all, they are
at street level: they are easy to see;
they are easy to find. It affords
greater accessibility and, we believe, creates a higher visibility for both the
ministry for the Status of Women and also for the advisory council.
They are also fully wheelchair accessible. They offer ample and safe parking, and they
offer an excellent bus service so that individuals can get there and can get
home, and we believe they are in a safe place.
The space provided is consistent with the government guidelines. It does allow a saving in rent, and it does
allow us to protect the programs and the community activity.
Obviously, I would hope that there would be co‑operative
working attitudes as there have been in the past, but they are not required to
share space. No one has given up a
library or a xeroxing facility. There
is, however, a common boardroom, a boardroom able to be used by both, a large
boardroom not in use all the time. It
has a separate entrance. The entrance to
the boardroom, one does not have to go through either the advisory council or
the Status of Women to reach the boardroom.
So there has been every effort to maintain the integrity,
the separateness of both, while looking to provide for Manitobans a space that
allowed us to protect the programs and also provided a visibility.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister‑‑and you may
not have this information‑‑give me the difference in square footage
between the former facilities and the current facilities?
Mrs. Vodrey: We do not have the differences in square
footage; we can undertake to provide it.
It is smaller. It is
somewhat less space. The previous space
was very large, and again we were looking to use the dollars in the area
available to programming. The work of
the advisory council, I look at and recognize that there is some travel
involved, that there is a need to have meetings in other parts of
Manitoba. So there was an effort to make
sure that was available. I look at the
directorate and the community work that they undertake and want to make sure
that continues to be possible.
So they have moved into their new space now.
Ms. Barrett: Could the minister tell me exactly what the
savings are in the rent?
Mrs. Vodrey: In total for both, $38,000, and that is on an
annual basis.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am interested in
returning to the detail of activities listed on page 16 and would like to begin
by determining what areas of legislation policy and program have been analyzed
in the last year.
Just specifically‑‑we will start with the
numbers‑‑how many areas were the subject of formal policy analysis?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that the
analysis has been in the area of education programs, labour legislation, pay
equity and in the area of justice, justice issues, particularly those issues as
they relate to violence.
Ms. McCormick: So I am counting five issue areas?
Mrs. Vodrey: Because we do work and we have analysts who
do work looking at the initiatives in every department, we do not have a
specific single list that I am able to read off to the member. I am told that, and I see that there are
certainly analyses done on initiatives in just about every department in
government and also on issues which cross government departments, such as
aboriginal issues.
Also, there are analyses done on federal legislation and
also federal initiatives, particularly in the area of economic initiatives,
entrpreneurship, the Business Start program, women and credit issues as well.
Ms. McCormick: How many of these policy analysis initiatives
resulted in recommendations to government?
Mrs. Vodrey: The way the directorate works is that the
directorate's role is to provide the women's perspective on initiatives in
other departments. It is not necessarily
to provide a list of recommendations regarding that initiative but, instead, to
look at the initiative and to give it the women's perspective and to make sure
that the Minister for the Status of Women has that information and that
information is able to be shared.
* (2330)
Ms. McCormick: I notice that the first statement in Activity
Identification ends with the words, makes recommendation to ensure women's
concerns are addressed. You are saying
that while it does not take the form of formal recommendations that in fact it
is more of a dialogue or a discussion with the minister responsible?
Mrs. Vodrey: The directorate, in the analysis, tries to
look at where consideration might be given to women or to an area affecting
women.
I am trying to think of an example that might be
helpful. One that crosses both of my
areas of responsibility is the antistalking legislation. When we have looked in Justice at the issues
that relate to women and women and violence, the changes to the Criminal Code
last year and the recommendations for change to the Criminal Code this year
were in looking at women as victims in a violent situation, asking that the
changes occur that would provide greater support for the victim. The previous changes in the antistalking,
which certainly were a step in the right direction, dealt with the offender.
What we are asking this time is that consideration be given
in changes to look at the needs of the woman as a victim in the antistalking
legislation. So there were direct
recommendations. I took those direct
recommendations to Ottawa. I also took
them to the conference for Ministers responsible for the Status of Women that
was held recently in Regina and presented those when we came to the part on the
agenda, and it was a large part this year on the issues of violence.
Ms. McCormick: I am back to concluding that there are
specific recommendations which come forward attached to the product of policy
and program analysis.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am not trying to be vague; I can just say
that in some cases that is the way. In
other cases, it is to analyze an impact.
In other cases, it is to look at an issue and to say where women should
be bringing forward a particular issue to be considered in that initiative.
There was also a recommendation to the recent meeting of
the Ministers responsible for the Status of Women for consultation and co‑operation
with Education to ensure that women's concerns were addressed in programs. Again, it was important for us to‑‑there
has been a lot of discussion about training and the training impact on
women. There was also a recognition that
there needed to be some discussion and inclusion of Ministers of Education
since across the country that minister of training, that Minister of Education
is not always the same person. There
have been recommendations to try and make sure that the initiatives have a very
comprehensive methodology or comprehensive way of application.
Ms. McCormick: The final statement in the Activity
Identification says: "Reflects
feedback received from its community outreach activities in the formulation of
policy analysis and recommendations."
It comes back to the same questions we were asking with respect to the
advisory council, and that is how the agenda is set and how the work priorities
are established for the unit in a given year.
Can you give me some indication of how much of the work of
the directorate is on request and how much is internally initiated?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the directorate
receives information from a number of sources.
They attend conferences, also.
They attend annual general meetings of groups within the women's
community. They also receive
delegations, by way of example, the immigrant women's group. They also participate in the national agenda,
and they participate in the working groups that are set up by the national
agenda, the violence working group being one that was set up recently, and,
also education and training by way of another example. There is also direction given in terms of
issues of interest to the government. In
areas of education and training, for instance, it may also ask then that the
directorate look at particular issues there.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chair, I guess I want to try and
come back at this another way. Given
that you have a manager and seven professional/technical people within the
department, how would the process of workload assignment and prioritization be
done? I am sure it is not quite as
serendipitous as it sounds, like you go to a meeting and somebody raises an
issue and come back and do analysis. I
mean, women do not work like that, so I would be very interested in knowing
what the process is of negotiating and achieving consensus on what kinds of
things will be the priority and how much time and resources are assigned to any
given initiative.
Mrs. Vodrey: The numbers that the member has spoken about
are not quite accurate because two of those individuals are outreach
workers. Those outreach workers work
directly with the community. Then we
have an administrator. We have four
analysts. One analyst works on economic
issues. Other analysts then divide the
work up by department or portfolio or social policies. We have an analyst who deals with a lot of
justice issues. We have an analyst who
deals with educational issues. We have
another analyst who deals with health and family services issues. We have one analyst who is on secondment to
the single‑parent initiative.
Ms. McCormick: I now have a better sense of its being four
as opposed to seven, but still do not have a better sense, aside from that you
have people identified as economic, justice, educational, health and family
services, about what the process is for determining internal priorities. For example, if I were the health and family
services analyst and I decided that it was intriguing to me, for example, to go
off and explore the impact of the foster care cutbacks on aboriginal
families. Could I simply do it because I
was interested, or would I have to go and negotiate that with somebody?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I agree, I do not
think it is as simple as an analyst just coming up with an idea and being able
to go off and do that. Where analysts do
have ideas, I am told that, yes, there can be a process of negotiation if there
is an issue, which, you know, one head has not thought of and another does
think of.
* (2340)
The work of the analysts is to look at the issues of
government priorities, to look at initiatives being put forward by government
to make sure that there is an analysis of the women's perspective within
government initiatives. They also
monitor the press. They monitor
Hansard. They act as a clearing‑house
for reports which come in nationally and make sure that the information of
those reports is then able to be given to the minister and available where it
might be helpful in other government departments. They also work cross‑jurisdictionally
so that where there is an issue that would affect the work of analysts where an
initiative may cross several departments, then they are able to work co‑operatively
to look at that impact or to look at the perspective of women in that area.
Ms. McCormick: So it might be reasonable to expect then, for
example, that an initiative such as has been recently passed in the Alberta
Legislature where they are denying defaulting parents access to driver's
licences and hunting licences might be something that your Women's Directorate
might be familiar with, might be coming back to you and determining whether or
not there is a role for such initiatives in Manitoba.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, that would be
true in that the directorate does do briefing notes which provide information
about initiatives which are occurring across Canada and to make sure that we
are aware of what those initiatives are.
We try to make sure that those briefing notes are as up to date and
comprehensive as can be for the time.
Ms. McCormick: I wrote the words down as you spoke
them: The Women's Directorate would look
at the issue of government priorities.
Can you describe how that comment or input might be offered with respect
to the legislative agenda? For example,
would there be a review of the throne speech?
I am very interested in knowing how the Women's Directorate comments on
or influences government priorities.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the directorate does
analyze the throne speech and the budget.
It also looks at areas of government initiative or priority things like‑‑I
keep coming back to the single parent program which is a major initiative which
affects women. Again, we have tried to
offer support through the secondment of a staff person as well to assist the
single parent project.
In the area of wanting to make sure that information was
available to women around education and training or the proposed changes that
may be occurring regarding the social safety net, those are the kinds of things
which the directorate would then be looking at the work of government and
wanting to make sure that the women's perspective was reflected or at least
noted and where possible acted upon.
I say where possible, because in some cases with the new
information flowing from changes to the social safety net‑‑we do
not know what they are yet, but perhaps the Women's Directorate would be one
way in which we could get information out or in which we could analyze the
effect.
Ms. McCormick: There are two other areas that I would just
like to explore briefly before I wrap up.
One comes out of the statement in the Expected Results, the statement
being: "initiatives to address the
socialization of girls and young women which impacts self‑esteem,
employment and career choices."
Before asking for detail on what kinds of initiatives might
be occurring in this area, I want to declare a bias. I have come to believe that it is less a
problem with the way that women and girls are socialized and more a problem
with the way in which we socialize boys and young men to view and treat
women. As a single parent and a mother
of three sons, I have spent a good deal of my time, I feel, competing for the minds
and opinions of my children.
That being said, can you describe for me some of the
initiatives directed towards socialization of girls and young women with
respect to self‑esteem, employment and career choices?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, some of the specific things
that we have done in the area of gender socialization are: to sponsor Heather Jane Robertson when she
came to the SAG conference recently, special area grouping conference, she
spoke to the guidance counsellors; the ongoing consultation and relationship
with the A Cappella Network; we have been invited to speak to school
superintendents; working with the Department of Education for the expanding
Choices.
Also, we sponsored the theatre group for young people at
the career symposium which dealt with the issues of socialization. We also participated in the development of
the Coulter paper. We participated in
the F/P/T Working Group on Education and Training.
We also have been a participant and supporter of the video
on gender socialization. This was a
project that was undertaken by the Ministers responsible for the Status of
Women across Canada. It was a national
project. We are looking forward to that
being completed. It will have guides for
parents and for teachers, and it will provide discussion.
The whole issue of gender socialization, as Coulter said,
as being an underlying basis for women to be able to have confidence in a very
simplistic way to proceed and to make choices.
Those choices are not just career choices, but they are also choices in
terms of relationship and also looking at power within relationships. The whole issue of gender socialization has
been seen as a very important basis of part of the work done by the
directorate.
* (2350)
Ms. McCormick: The final area‑‑I will not spend
a lot of time on, but I do want to raise some of the concerns. I had the opportunity to review the Hay
report, and I had some questions which I will, in fact, be bringing up in the
Civil Service Commission. I really am
interested in knowing whether the Women's Directorate plays a role in
determining what the barriers are to women's progress in our provincial Civil
Service and whether there are any initiatives currently going on in the
directorate to track the progress of women towards a goal of fair treatment and
equitable participation in the public service.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am not sure if this
is a complete answer, but the directorate has access to the Civil Service
reports on a quarterly basis, and in 1993, I am informed that women comprised
20.76 percent of applicants to competitions for male‑dominated
classifications and were successful in 24.24 percent of appointments.
Ms. McCormick: So there is some interest in the department
in tracking progress towards women in nontraditional or in areas in which the
hiring of a woman would redress an imbalance within a classification. Is it sort of hit‑and‑miss, or is
it some kind of a thorough, across‑department analysis?
Mrs. Vodrey: The directorate looks at the Civil Service report. That is the information that they receive,
and they do monitor it. They also
analyze it as well, and we believe it is quite a thorough analysis. We also look at the labour force survey,
which comes out monthly, and are able to look then at what issues are affecting
women within the labour force survey.
They also look at information that comes from academic enrollment as
well and what women are enrolled in, so that it provides a forecast for the
pool of trained women in certain areas.
Ms. McCormick: This is my final question in this area. I can see that the labour force survey would
give broad trends and the academic entry looks at the progress of women into
various disciplines, but it still does not answer or address my concerns with
respect to women in our own public service.
For example, there is a belief that women's needs can best be addressed
by access to opportunities for advancement.
Is there, in addition to your point‑of‑entry analysis‑‑who
gets the job at the entry level‑‑any ability to or interest in
tracking professional career development opportunities which lead to
advancement within the Civil Service?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, I am told that we monitor
the Civil Service Career Development program and also the Executive Development
program, but these are development programs.
They do not lead specifically to a job at the end. Most jobs or positions are filled by
competition, so we also then try and look at women participating in the
competitions and then what their success rate within the competitions is. We try and examine it from the two parts.
Ms. McCormick: The final question, are women making
progress, then? Is that your conclusion?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that in the last quarterly
report of the Civil Service for '93, women were now 50.67 percent of the Civil
Service, for the first time over the 50 percent mark, and that in the last 12
years their representation in the executive ranks has increased seven
times. So it does speak to some
progress.
Ms. McCormick: I cannot let this event of Estimates go by
without asking about one number in your appropriation. On page 17, subappropriation 22‑1B,
Indirect Salary Costs, in the 1993‑94 Estimates, it was set at 31.3; it
has increased to 53.1. Can you
explain? I think of all of the numbers
that is the only one with the significant increase‑‑in Indirect
Salary Costs. Can you describe to me the
reasons for that increase?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am told that that reflects the cost of the
interchange agreement and also the career development‑‑we have an
individual within our branch on career development and we provide the dollars.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Item 1. Status of Women (b) Women's Directorate (2) Other
Expenditures $99,100‑‑pass.
Resolution 22.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$914,700 for the Status of Women for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
This concludes the Department of the Status of Women.
Committee rise.
* (2000)
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Highways and Transportation. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
We are on item 3.(a), page 93 of the Estimates manual,
Planning and Design.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I believe we had just started Planning and
Design when the Estimates last ended.
Can the minister tell me, since there were three positions that were
eliminated due to the consolidation of services, were these jobs filled or were
they vacancies, and were they within the city of Winnipeg or were they at some
other points within the province, and where did we consolidate the services and
with whom?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Highways and Transportation):
We have joining us here at this point in time Mr. Dave Selby, Director
of Northern Airports and Marine.
I would like to distribute to the opposition critics a
summary of information as requested at previous sittings.
With regard to the question the member asked, all three
positions are vacant. All three
positions were in Winnipeg. One of the
positions is an Engineering 5 which was vacant since 1993. The person who was in the position took VSIP
in '93. Another position was an
Engineering 4, the same thing, it was VSIP in '93. The third position was a Tech Officer 2. I will stress to the member, all three were
vacant, all in the city.
Mr. Reid: It seems a bit strange that we have entered
into the SHIP program with the federal government and we are looking to expand
it as far as a National Highways Program, and we are cutting back on the
planning and design which is the first step of any activities towards road
building. I do not understand why we are
continuing‑‑I believe it had occurred last budget as well where we
had cut back staff. Why are we
continuing to cut back staff in the planning and design phase?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the three positions we are
talking about here are support functions.
They are not the people directly involved in the design process. Through the process of regionalization and
the reorganization of the department around putting the positions in the
regions, the department has over this course of time over the last year
strengthened its capacity in design by putting people in the region and has
increased the capacity in the field to do the design jobs, and these three
positions are only support positions for those planners and designers. So it in no way compromises the ability of
the department to do its planning and design.
Mr. Reid: At our last sitting on Highways Estimates, I
had asked the minister about some planning that was underway with the Nora‑Florence
Lake group. It is my understanding that
the minister and/or his staff may have had a meeting in the last week with the
residents group. Can the minister tell
me what has transpired at that meeting?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, we have met in Estimates
last on Tuesday. It was while we were in
Estimates here that the meeting was held, and the residents met with the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger).
As I told, I think, the member last time, we had done some design work
at where a road might go. They have in
front of them the requirement for an environmental licence. They are going to be talking with federal
people about cost‑sharing with them, and Minister Driedger is going to
convene a meeting in due course with myself and federal Transport Canada people
to talk about what can be done here.
Mr. Reid: Then I assume from that the minister's
department knows what the issue is with respect to the requirements or the need
for a road for the area. What is the
position of the department with respect to the request that the residents or
the property owners would have brought forward to the minister's department? Are you going to do it or not?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the federal government has
closed a rail passenger service which is what the people were using. Our belief is that they have saved about
$730,000 in that process. We feel that
the residents who want a private road should be cost‑sharing with the federal
government to build the road. In other
words, the province should not be involved in the construction costs of the
road.
* (2010)
Our basic understanding is that the cost of the road might
be around $850,000. I said the federal
government is saving $730,000, so by closing off the services they have saved
money. I think they have the capacity
then to contribute to another means of land transportation in there.
Mr. Reid: If I understand the minister correctly then
what he is saying is that the department will undertake to do the construction
as need be, but they are not willing to provide any of the capital or the
funding necessary to do that project.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I think the member has summed it
up right. We have indicated we are
prepared to do engineering work. If the
citizens want it as a private road, we are prepared to do our part on the
engineering side, but in terms of the cost of construction, it should be
between them and the federal government.
Mr. Reid: I just wanted to switch a bit here now to the
northeast Perimeter project, because I believe that is partially in the
planning and design phase and partially nearing the construction phase for a
portion of it as well this summer. It is
my understanding that you are going to be looking at grading portions of two
lanes this summer, this construction season.
What is going to take place with the structures, because it is my
understanding in looking at the annual report that you are looking at
construction for the Oakbank corridor and you were doing studies on that? What point are you at with those studies, and
when do we anticipate that there be a need for a Gunn Road interchange for that
link?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, there will be two grading
contracts this year. Both grading
contracts will grade four lanes. The
intention will be, in subsequent budgets, to budget for the base and paving of
the two interlanes. So one of those
grading contracts has been awarded, and the second one is about to be awarded
very, very soon.
The member asked about Gunn Road and‑‑okay, one
other thing. We will be grading this
year the embankments for a CP line overpass.
With regard to CN, it will be a level crossing, and we are not planning
at this stage to build interchanges at either 59 or 15. With regard to Gunn Road or Oakbank corridor,
that is in the planning stages at this time, and a public meeting is being
planned for Dugald on June 27. I believe
it has been advertised for June 27 at Dugald.
They have about three different options on the table as to how to hook
in from the floodway to Highway 206. All
three of them are south of Oakbank. So
it would take a lot of that traffic that now comes down 206 to Highway 15, it
would be able to go straight into the city and interconnect to the Perimeter.
Mr. Reid: Okay, I understand. So it will be somewhere down the road before
we see any construction take place on that.
It will be a long‑term plan yet.
Can the minister tell me‑‑because the planning
people are here now, I take it there must have been some cost analysis done on
what the projected underpass was going to be on Highway 15, CN main line‑‑what
the projected cost of that underpass was going to be and what we are looking at
now before we can anticipate any kind of construction of any structures for
that site?
Mr. Findlay: The original plan was to put some structure
in place if CN line was going to be there forever. Once it became apparent that because of
discussions between CN and CP that one line might not be there in the future‑‑and
I stress might not‑‑it became very difficult to spend money there
to build a structure that would take the road under the track, the CN track,
and under Highway 15, at considerable cost.
We do not have a definitive cost.
We have very crude ballpark estimates, none of which I would like to say
at this time. They are substantial
millions, put it that way.
That is only a portion of it. I would dare say in excess of 10 would be a‑‑definitely
in excess of $10 million. So until such
time as there is a definitive decision on the use of that line by CN, it would
not be appropriate to invest any money to go over it or under it. As I say, we are going to go over the CP
line, but the plan that had been roughly designed was going under the CN and
under 15, and none of that will be done until there is a clear signal as to
whether that expenditure is warranted.
Mr. Reid: Then what discussions has the department had
with CN to determine what their long‑range plans are for that line, and
has any indication been given on when we can anticipate receiving some
direction here, or are we going to have to wait in perpetuity? If CN never makes up its mind and gives a
definitive position, are we going to wait forever before we construct an
overpass or an underpass?
* (2020)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I think the member could
understand why we would want to be raising this question with CN, given the
public information that has come out over the past few months. We have had reasonable amount of discussion
with them. We are led to believe‑‑I
guess one could say there is a‑‑although you hear of one topic
being discussed, and that is CN‑CP merger east of Winnipeg, one would
have to surmise that if that ever did materialize, it might really be more
effective east of Thunder Bay than east of Winnipeg because of the amount of
grain that is moving between here and Thunder Bay. So there is always an option that merger east
of Winnipeg would still leave those two lines in place. I would think that would be a reasonable
option that would still be considered.
We expect to have some more definitive comment from CN
before the end of this calendar year.
Within six to eight, nine months, we should have a reasonably firm
understanding of what the future of that line is. Then from there, we will plan highway design
based on volumes and available dollars, but at this time, we do not see it
appropriate to spend dollars to anticipate what the decision might be.
Mr. Reid: It is my understanding that there will be a
decision some time this year as well on the merger between the two. We will get into that discussion when we get
into the policy area.
I take it then that with the construction of the structure itself
over the CP main line, which the minister says there is going to be some
preliminary work started on that this year, the embankments for it, then I take
it we are going to do the actual construction of the structure itself and any
of the asphalt overlay for the two lanes of traffic in the next construction‑‑in
the spring project then perhaps?
Mr. Findlay: In building bridges, the normal process is to
build the embankments and let them settle for up to a year. So the department will be looking at building
the structure in '95, with the paving of it in '96. Our object is to have traffic running in '96.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(River Heights): I have done a perusal of the last Estimates,
for which I was not here, so I am hoping I am not repeating anything.
I want to get into the planning and design program for
Highway 59. As the minister knows, there
was a very large public meeting held, which he was not able to attend, but
which the former Minister of Highways attended on his behalf. Some of the programs there then were
indicated.
There did not seem to be a five‑year strategic plan
with respect to Highway 59. I am
specifically addressing the area south of Winnipeg. What are the long‑term initiatives for
this particular highway, and what kind of a target date does the minister
anticipate for the twinning of that highway?
Mr. Findlay: The member asks about the twinning of Highway
59. Really, what the design is, it is a
total rebuilding of 59 on a new alignment.
The existing highway has got a lot of development along it. The cost of acquiring land there is very
high, and you certainly would not improve the safety an awful lot by just
building more lanes in an already congested area. So the basic design is a new alignment.
Effectively, it is east of the existing Highway 59 and
somewhere north of Ile des Chenes. It
crosses over the existing 59; and then south of Ile des Chenes, it is back on
the alignment, I believe. The present plan takes the new construction to about
four kilometres south of Ile des Chenes.
The first major project in that is a new bridge over the
floodway. The plan is to do some grading
of the approaches to that bridge in late '94, with the expectation we can be
building the bridge soon thereafter. So
it is a very major project. I think the
total cost is something like $60 million.
There is no question about the need for it, no question at
all, but there is need in many places, and I can assure the member that we will
be very soon completing 59. There is
major work now on the northeast Perimeter; 59 follows right in behind in terms of
a sense of urgency to do it as soon as possible. But there is commitment to approaches to the
bridge and the bridge soon thereafter.
* (2030)
We expect final environmental approval to come very
soon. Once that final environmental
approval is in place, then detailed design will commence on that
structure. It is always a very long
process to meet all the requirements in today's society with building
infrastructure of that magnitude.
So we do not expect to have any difficulty with the
environmental approval, but at this time it is still not here. We expect it soon, and then we will get on
with detailed design and then build the approaches and then follow with the
bridge. Obviously, the road has to
follow that.
Mrs. Carstairs: I think it was clear at the meeting that
there were individuals there who of course would hope that the Minister of
Highways could wave a magic wand and the highway would be built tomorrow. That is obviously unrealistic. I think to be fair to the minister, both of
the critics recognized it was also unrealistic.
But they were looking for some time lines, some planning. I mean, is this a 10‑year project, a 15‑year
project, a 30‑year project? Has
the department given any time‑line definition to this particular project?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the building of the four
lanes is planned in two stages. Land
acquisition can sometimes be a very difficult process, but the member asks for
some time line, and you know, the minute you say something you put yourself
into difficulties with the budget process because it is always, with a $60‑million
project, just not something you can give hard guarantees to. But the member mentioned 5, 10, 15, I think,
if one took the shorter period on that list, that would be a realistic vision
for the project.
Mrs. Carstairs: In the outline of the highway construction
program for '94‑95, it refers to some 40 kilometres that would be this
year submitted to environmental assessment.
At what stage is that environmental assessment?
Mr. Findlay: The section the member is referring to, the
40 kilometres, is from the U.S. border north to St. Malo. No work has been done on that yet, but the
plan is to do that in the very near future.
This is for grading and resurfacing of that 40 kilometres from the U.S.
border north. The environmental
approvals for the Highway 59 section just south of the Perimeter are already in
process.
Mr. Reid: With the Highway 59 project‑‑Highway
59 south because there has obviously been over the years a fair amount of money
expended on the northern portion north of Winnipeg, and there is more money,
looking at the spring program listing, to be expended this year as well‑‑has
the department ever approached the federal government, the new federal government
that is in place now, to look at, and I am not sure if this has already taken
place, if Highway 59 can be part of the Strategic Highway Improvement Program
since it is obvious, and the minister has said this many times in the House,
that there has been a shift in the traffic flow patterns between Canada and the
U.S., having another link to the U.S?
Have we asked the federal government to participate in this program by
way of funding or cost sharing of any improvements to Highway 59 south?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, in the process of negotiating
with the federal government on the SHIP program, Strategic Highway Improvement
Program, with which we are in the second year now, one of the requirements was
that all highways of which the monies would be spent by the federal government
had to be part of the National Highways Program.
Highway 59 is not part of the National Highways
Program. The routes where the
expenditures have been occurring, Highway 75, Highway 16, Highway 1, east and
west of the city, and the northeast Perimeter, are all part of the National
Highways Program.
The $70 million, $35 million federal, $35 million
provincial, that has been dedicated in the SHIP program has all been
allocated. It is really all allocated
basically at the beginning, so there is no more money to allocate, and 59 is
not part of that National Highways Program.
I guess it is fair to say that 59, the majority of traffic,
particularly in the area of where we need to do the reconstruction, is
residential movement. It is citizens
moving in and out of the city as opposed to commercial movement. I guess there is a general feeling that 75 is
the main route from Manitoba into the United States or from Winnipeg at least
to the United States. If there was a
second commercial route of significance moving from Winnipeg to the United
States, it probably would be Highway 12 as opposed to 59.
Mr. Reid: Well, obviously the minister has more
expertise available to him, not only just dealing with road construction, but
also transportation in general.
What is it that draws the minister's department to conclude
that Highway 12 should be the one that is the preferred option for twinning
versus Highway 59?
Mr. Findlay: I just want to be very clear to the member
that we are not talking about automatic twinning or four‑laning it. The reason I make the statement Highway 12 is
probably of more significance than 59 is that is where commercial development
or movement of commercial traffic is increasing.
It seems to be origination, destination, and it is moving
toward Duluth, I guess, Chicago, I guess.
That seems to be, as commercial traffic increases in some route other
than 75, a more preferred route. If we
were to upgrade it, the first thing would be upgrading in the two lanes. It would not be automatic four‑laning. The four‑laning we are doing on 59, as
I said earlier, is to do more, much more, with the movement of citizens in and
out of Winnipeg to areas where they live as opposed to commercial movement of
traffic.
In order to be part of the National Highways Program, it
has to be a significant commercial route.
Mr. Reid: I am not going to belabour this, but can the
minister indicate how he determined whether it is the significance of the
route, and who makes that determination on whether or not it is going to be
part of the National Highways Program and the National Highways plan
itself? Who makes that determination,
and what criteria do they base it on?
* (2040)
Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Chair, in terms of determining
what routes are part of the National Highways Program, there is significant
criteria set up and it is part of a long, ongoing negotiation with the federal
government as to what criteria certain roads meet or whether they come to meet
those criteria over the course of time.
I would not want to leave the member with any presumption
that 12 is more important than 59 or the reverse. I mean the question is clearly up in the air
and subject to development of patterns in the future. I just wanted to relate to him that 59 to the
United States is not an automatic second route after 75, and those national
criteria will be used in the process of determining in due course whether 12 or
59 or any other route is designated as part of the National Highways Program.
I just say at this time our information is commercial
desire would be more 12 than 59, but that does not preclude the reversal of
that in a couple of years depending on developments that may take place. Let us face it, once the four‑laning of
that portion to Ile des Chenes happens, it may change commercial interest in
moving between here and the border. Time
will tell.
Mr. Reid: I just want to go back to the SHIP program
for a minute because with the O/C that came out last year, O/C 176‑93,
for the Perimeter Highway program, part of the cost‑share for this was
the construction of the structure of Highway 15 interchange CN overpass, and
there were estimated expenditures of $7.2 million. I take it that was monies that were to be
expended by each of the partners in the arrangement for a total of just under
$15 million.
Because there was supposed to be some cash flow to that
project of $3 million for last year and $3.7 million for this year, what is
happening with those monies as part of that program?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, what the member sees is an
original intention, and to just go back to our earlier discussion, after that
decision was made and the O/C was passed it became apparent that CN and CP were
into some kind of negotiations that put the future use of that CN line in some
kind of doubt. So the monies that were
allocated there under the SHIP program were reallocated. At that point in time the overall SHIP
intention from the northeast Perimeter was to build structures. It did not include grading. It did not include the CP overpass which we
are now doing. So money is designated
there but reallocated with the intention, you know, in my mind to put it
bluntly, to get traffic moving sooner on paved road as opposed to building the
structures.
The original plan had traffic that would be running by the
year 2000. The current plan will have
traffic running by 1996. So what you saw
was initial intention to build structures, structures no longer as necessary as
it used to be given the future of CN, reallocated the money to grading and a CP
overpass with the intention of getting traffic running sooner. Once we know where CN is going, decisions on
what to do there will take place from that point on.
Mr. Reid: One last question. Then I take it the money has not been lost,
we are still going to get the same amount of money towards that project, and it
is just going to be reallocated to another portion of the project which will
include the CP overpass and the grading itself?
Mr. Findlay: I can absolutely assure the member monies are
not lost at all. The $70 million
committed initially will still be spent.
We have extended the agreement really from two years to three years, so
over the course of three years $70 million will be spent on projects on
northeast Perimeter, Nos. 1, 16 and 75.
No money will be lost in the process.
Mr. Reid: One last question. The $7.2 million that was the estimated
expenditures for that structure, was that the overall cost or is that the
provincial share?
Mr. Findlay: That figure is the overall cost but just for
the CN structure. It had nothing to do
with any structure that might be necessary on Highway 15.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(a)
Mrs. Carstairs: Just to get some clarification, the minister
in discussing Highway 12 and Highway 59 indicated that there appeared to be
more commercial traffic on 12 at the present time than there was on 59, which
is contrary, by the way, to the information that was given at this public
meeting. If the minister has any figures
of commercial traffic, and I do not expect him to have it here, then perhaps he
can distribute that information to the two critics.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we do not have any information,
but we will let the member know what the figures are. As well as knowing what the figures are, we
have to know what the probability is in the future, and that we get in
discussions with, you know, the commercial sector. That is where we get a bit of a feeling that
as time goes by in terms of origination/destination routes there is probably
going to be a lot of interest in Highway 12‑‑put it that way‑‑and
how one will stack up versus the other remains to be seen. That is where the criteria for determining
what is part of the National Highways Program will come into play in the
process. The figures may be different
today than what they are projected to be in the future, and we will supply what
we have as well as some idea if we have a better idea about commercial intentions
for the future.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(a) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$1,753,400.
Mr. Reid: When we were in Estimates last year, the
previous minister said that, and I will quote:
we will be working to negotiate a further cost‑shared agreement
post '94‑95. Has there been any discussions
ongoing on that process? At what point
are we at with those negotiations?
Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Chair, I am sure what the former
minister was referring to was the National Highways Program which he and the
former deputy had spent a lot of time on over the course of the last few years.
It is fair to say that all provinces agreed with the
network that the ministers and deputy ministers had arrived at over the course
of time, the network right across the country, across the 10 provinces, of what
should be in the National Highways Program.
The question then becomes how to pay for it. The provinces, particularly in our case, we
have put a fair bit of money into capital into highways every year, along with
the maintenance of highways. We certainly
feel that the highways are a national network as much as they are a provincial
network and that the federal government has a role to play to try and maintain
this national network. The process of
deciding how to fund it, I guess we will say we tossed it upstairs to the
Minister of Finance.
* (2050)
Mr. Young, the new federal minister, has acknowledged that
a plan does exist for a National Highways Program. The issue is how to fund it.
The proposal that has been put on the table really involves
two pools of money, what is called an A pool and a B pool. The A pool would be 80 percent of the
expenditures, and it was proposed to be cost shared 65 percent federal, 35
percent provincial. The B pool‑‑obviously
for urgent roads or for more destitute provinces‑‑would be 20
percent of the money to be cost shared, 90 percent federal, 10 percent
provincial. So that is the framework of
an agreement that the provinces, at least, all support.
Now it requires input from the Ministers of Finance to
determine whether that is the right formula or what other kind of formula they
would be prepared to fund.
I do not think there is any question any more of what the
network would be that would be part of the National Highways Program.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(a) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$1,753,400‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $658,800‑‑pass.
Resolution 15.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$2,412,200 for Highways and Transportation, Planning and Design, for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item 4. Engineering and Technical Services (a) Management
Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Reid: There has been one position eliminated and
the Supplementary Estimates indicates consolidating northern airports with a
regional office administration. Was this
position filled or was it vacant, and can the minister tell me where that job
was?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the position was
filled. It was in Winnipeg and the
individual who was in the position has been accommodated elsewhere in the
department.
Madam Chairperson: Item 4.(a) Management Services (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $116,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$20,600‑‑pass.
Item 4.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits.
Mr. Reid: There has been considerable staff year
changes in this section again, as we have seen in the past couple of
years. We seem to be continually eroding
the Mechanical Equipment Services department and it leads one to wonder what
the long‑term goal is, whether or not we are going to be able to provide
the necessary services to different parts of the province.
The Supplementary Estimates indicates its staffing is
downsized to reflect current activity, which is a pretty ambiguous
statement. I mean, if you want to
confuse people, that is one way to word it.
So I am going to ask the minister to expand or elaborate or explain what
that is supposed to mean.
Report
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau
(Deputy Chairperson of Committees): Madam
Chairperson, in the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 to
consider the Estimates for the Status of Women, the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) moved the following motion to refer a matter of privilege to the House:
THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines of
Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply indicating "she
needs a slap" that violated my privileges as a member of the Legislature
be reported to the House and that, in accordance with the provisions of
Beauchesne Citation 107, this committee recommend this matter be referred to
the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
A voice vote was held on the matter and the motion was
defeated. Two members then requested a
formal vote on the matter.
* (2100)
Formal Vote
Madam Chairperson: A formal vote has been requested. Call in the members.
The motion before the committee reads as follows:
THAT the comments of the Minister of Energy and Mines of
Monday, June 13, to myself in the Committee of Supply indicating "she
needs a slap" that violated my privileges as a member of the Legislature
be reported to the House and that, in accordance with the provisions of Beauchesne
Citation 107, this committee recommend that this matter be referred to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections.
All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
* (2130)
A COUNT‑OUT VOTE was taken, the result
being as follows: Yeas 27, Nays 26.
The motion is accordingly carried.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I was paired with the Minister of Education
(Mr. Manness), and if I had been allowed to vote, I would have voted yes.
Madam Chairperson: The motion is accordingly carried. I will report the passing of this motion when
I report to the House tomorrow, and the Speaker will deal with the matter of
privilege at that time.
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
(continued)
Madam Chairperson: We will now resume the line‑by‑line
consideration of the Estimates. This
section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the
Department of Highways.
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
We are on item 4.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services, page 94
of the Estimates manual.
Mr. Reid: When we left, Madam Chairperson, I had asked
a question of the minister to explain the ambiguity of the statement, staff
downsized to reflect current activity, and he was just, I believe, in the
process of responding to my question.
Mr. Findlay: I will try to help the member understand what
current activities are. What you see is
a reduction of 15 staff from 230 to 215.
One must remember that 2,000 kilometres were given back to the
municipalities, which is about 10 percent of the mileage of highways that
Highways was looking after. So that is
part of the reason.
Secondly, more services have been‑‑what the
member would hate to see‑‑privatized. Mowing of the ditches and that sort of thing
is being done under contract. Out of the
15 that the member sees as reductions here, it is only really five positions
that were eliminated. Ten of these
positions, which were vacant, were transferred to the new private vehicle
inspection program, so minus 15 here, plus 10 under private vehicle inspection
program, the one that is coming in on July 1 of 1995, but they were vacant
positions that were transferred.
Mr. Reid: I was not aware that 10 of those jobs were
associated with the vehicle inspection program that was tied with the
legislation from the last session.
What were the functions that were performed by these
employees that would allow them to be transferred to this new program that
would be undertaken by a private inspection point?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, it is not the people. It was the positions. Ten positions were vacant and we transferred
the positions, not the people. We
transferred the positions to PVIP, not the people because those 10 positions
were vacant.
Mr. Reid: I must be getting tired because I do not
understand how he can transfer positions and not have had some people in those
positions at some time in the past. So I
must be missing something here.
Mr. Findlay: There were people in the positions in the past,
but at some time in the more recent past those positions were all vacant. There was nobody in them. So we just moved the positions from MES over
to the private vehicle inspection program, not people. There were no people in these positions. Why they were vacant is a matter of probably
a number of different reasons over the course of time, but there were no people
transferred with the positions, just the vacant positions.
Mr. Reid: I still do not comprehend that unless I am
missing something here. Whether the
positions are vacant or not, those were still jobs that were undertaken by MES
and now they are being done by private vehicle inspection programs. So how is it that we are transferring these
to a private service for something that was originally done under departmental
control?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, to try to help the member
understand, we are moving the positions from one program‑‑positions,
not people‑‑positions from one program of government to the
other. The private vehicle inspection
program is an inspection program to be carried out by service stations, garages
across the province. The people‑‑these
10 positions that are moved over there‑‑do the inspection and the
certification of those stations.
* (2140)
Mr. Reid: Sometimes I am a little slow on these issues,
Madam Chairperson. I thank the
minister. Now I understand what it is. It is still going to be a function of his
department under the private vehicle inspection program to enforce the criteria
of the program upon the private inspection points. Now I understand. Okay.
So it will be a lateral move for these people then, those 10 positions
into that program.
When do we anticipate that we are going to fill those jobs,
or are they currently filled now?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we expect to start filling the
positions in about a month's time in order to meet the start‑up date of
July 1, '95, for the private vehicle inspection program.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Reid: I believe this subdepartment is also
responsible for new equipment purchases for the maintenance program. Last Estimates I asked the minister about the
ages of the equipment we had because there seemed to be a reduction in the
replacements of aging equipment, which would lead me to conclude that somewhere
along the line we are going to pay for equipment failures by being unable to
provide the necessary services, whether it be through snow clearing, et cetera,
in the future.
Have there been any changes in the program for equipment
purchases, and have we made any equipment purchases this year or do we
anticipate making purchases?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, there are equipment
purchases planned for this year, but in terms of determining whether a piece of
equipment should be replaced or not, age, although it is one criteria, by no
means is it the only criteria or by no means is it the significant criteria.
I think it is fair to say that throughout industry, the
private sector, I do not care what you are talking about‑‑construction,
whether it is farming, whether it is transportation‑‑people are
finding that by proper maintenance you can certainly keep a piece of equipment
in service much longer and, obviously, at lower cost over a 20‑year
period of time. It is far cheaper to
maintain and maintain properly as opposed to replace.
Although 10 or 15 years ago we certainly operated on a
replace turnover with old equipment by new equipment as a way of life, that is
no longer the way of life in government or in the private sector.
The way of life is to maintain it more effectively to
prolong the life. That by no means means
that we have equipment that is less capable of doing the job.
Mr. Reid: I understand that the department I am sure
tries to be as efficient as possible and not replace equipment just based
solely on age. That was not my intent in
my question.
I was interested in the condition of the equipment and what
the requirements are of the department, because it says here that this
subdepartment prepares an assessment of equipment requirements‑‑and
for timely provision of the appropriate equipment delivery. That is why I am asking the questions about
what equipment is being purchased and basing it on my perception of some of the
criteria that would be utilized for those equipment purchases.
I am not sure if the minister has the information available
here. I am not saying that it should be,
but if he has information relating to the purchases for this year as a
replacement, then I would like to receive that information, if possible.
Mr. Findlay: For this year, we estimate that we will be
purchasing about $1.1 million worth of equipment. The equipment fleet value is approximately
$40 million.
Mr. Reid: Getting back to staff, because only 10 of the
people were transferred and another five staff years were deleted from the
Mechanical Equipment Services, were those staff that were moved out of the
department through a buy‑out package, a voluntary separation package or
was there a transfer within the government departments?
Mr. Findlay: The other five positions were all
vacant. Nobody was in the positions.
Mr. Reid: The minister‑‑and I thank him for
the information‑‑provided a sheet on snowplow contracts. It indicates on the information he has
provided that there was only one successful bidder, Evergreen Construction, and
it was out of Riverton. Is that the only
contract that has been let for maintenance, because that would replace some of
the services under MES, or are there other contractors that do that work as
well that the minister has not provided information for?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, this was a snowplow
contract in a specific area of the province where there was deemed to be a
shortage of department equipment. It was
a contract for the entire winter, and the contractor was paid for the hours of
use, but he was required to guarantee that a machine and a man would be
available at all times in case there was a storm.
Mr. Reid: I take it then that there were no other
contracts that were let for snowplow contracts as a result of the changes in
the departmental policy for winter maintenance programs.
* (2150)
Mr. Findlay: Yes, that was the only contract. In other locations at different times, if
there was a severe storm, private contractors were hired on an hourly basis to
fill in, to give us additional equipment to meet the urgency of the
situation. I would have to say there
probably was very little of it last winter because there were little or no
storms. It is not uncommon to call in
equipment in emergencies to add to the fleet to get it done faster.
Mr. Reid: One last question there. On the Accommodation under Other
Expenditures, it shows a decrease. In
fact, there is a general decrease in all of the costs, whether it be fuel for
the trucks, tires, maintenance and repairs, utilities. I guess the only one that has increased would
have been the insurance or the equipment rentals. All the rest of the items have been showing a
decrease in the costs.
What can the minister attribute all the decreases to? Is that because we are now looking at a
decrease in the amount of maintenance or that the number of pieces of equipment
has decreased year over year? Why is
there a change, an increase actually, in the amount that we pay for the
accommodations for the MES services?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the accommodation is
for building rentals. It is charges that
we pay to Government Services, and the decreases in the rest of the categories,
probably as much as anything, are due to the fact that we are maintaining 10
percent less of total roads.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Reimer): Item 4.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $6,981,400‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $10,364,800‑‑pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($20,250,100)‑‑pass.
4.(c) Warehouse Stores (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$531,500.
Mr. Reid: Just one question there. Does the minister anticipate there will be
any changes in the warehousing stores, and will the changes in the Dauphin Sign
Shop impact on any of the operations or change any of the way the warehousing
store operations function?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member asked if
the Dauphin Sign Shop would cause any changes here. Previously, when we owned and operated the
store, we bought the raw materials that passed through the stores. Now that a private operation is producing the
signs, we buy the signs from them. So
the completed signs will now pass through the stores or through the
department. So it may reflect some
differences in costs, but instead of raw materials passing through, you now
have a finished product. It is what we
buy and what we maintain in a certain storage capacity in the department.
Mr. Reid: Does the minister foresee any impact on the
staffing levels for the warehouse and stores then?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, no changes are
reflected in the Supplementary Estimates that the member sees in front of
him. That does not mean that the
department is not looking at trying to improve its efficiencies in this areas
in the future, and I would not want to predict whether that will cause a change
in staffing or not. It does not mean
that they will not be looking at it.
They certainly will be looking at ways and means to improve efficiency
of doing the operations.
Mr. Reid: I take it, then, that there are some serious
considerations being given to changing the staffing levels then. [interjection]
Well, one can almost see the handwriting on the wall: as soon as there were changes within the sign
shop arrangement, other functions will be impacted by that decision as
well. So it is not just the one area,
the Dauphin Sign Shop, that is going to change.
There are other functions impacted by that same decision.
That is all the questions I have.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Reimer): Item 4.(c)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$531,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $132,000‑‑pass;
(3) Purchases $4,940,000‑‑pass; (4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations, a
credit of $5,603,500‑‑pass.
4.(d) Northern Airports.
* (2200)
Mr. Reid: There has been some concern on the part of
northern residents since word came out earlier this year in March that the
airport control tower at Thompson was being seriously considered by the federal
government for closure, at least a portion of its operation was being seriously
considered by the federal government, the Minister of Transport and/or
Transport Canada.
Can the minister give me some idea of what has taken place
with respect to that issue? I have not
heard any more about it since that point.
Is the federal government still considering closing down either the
tower operations or their flight services?
Mr. Findlay: I think the member recognizes that Thompson
is a federally controlled regulated airport, and our information at this time
is that Transport Canada has made some recommendation to the federal minister
on the flight services and the tower about what to do with them in the future.
We are not aware that they have made a decision, at least
no information on the decision has been transmitted to us.
I can tell the member that certainly the town council in
Thompson is concerned from the standpoint of safety and the impact that closing
the tower might have on future economic development for Thompson and
region. We supported them by a letter
from myself outlining the same concerns that the federal minister should take
into account before making a final decision.
Mr. Reid: Well, I am aware of some of the
correspondence that has taken place between the minister and my colleague the
member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), and the letters that have gone to the federal
Minister of Transport as well.
I have the information here. It says here that Transport Canada recently
completed a study consisting of a cost‑benefit and operational
analysis. Has the minister's department
received that information, because to me it appears here that Transport Canada
is placing this decision as one based solely on the analysis of the dollar
value from a commercialization aspect of it versus one that would include
safety.
So it seems, at least by the information that has been
provided here from the federal minister, that they seemed to have ignored the
safety aspect of it. I am just wondering
if there has been any other decisions, or has the department received the study
from Transport Canada relating to the Thompson airport?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the member is right
in terms of the federal government has done cost‑benefit analysis and our
staff have been involved in presentations from federal people. We are reasonably convinced they have taken
the issue of safety into consideration in their analysis but whether they have
taken the impact on economic development into consideration, we do not
know. It clearly was the second element
that we raised as an issue of concern, along with safety, when we wrote to the
federal minister. The City of Thompson
has raised that and I assume other individuals also. Whether they will take that into
consideration in the decision process, I am unable to comment on.
Mr. Reid: Has the federal Minister of Transport
indicated whether or not his department or he would be responding to the
province and to the Department of Highways and Transportation prior to any
final decision being made with respect to the airport?
Mr. Findlay: All I can tell the member is that we have
sent a letter. We do not know whether
they will come back to us or not. If
they have any further questions, if they want some information from us, I
presume they will. To this point, they
have not responded to my letter which was some time ago. I think I mentioned earlier that we have
written some 14 letters to the new federal minister and got replies on four of
them, so this is in the group of 10 that has not been responded to.
Mr. Reid: All right, I guess we will wait. The minister will probably make an
announcement in due course then as information comes to his attention.
I think it is important to northern Manitobans and, indeed,
to Manitoba itself that we have Thompson airport with the current operations in
place, otherwise I do not see how we can have further enhancement of northern
activities without complete air services to serve northern Manitoba.
I know I have flown in and out of Thompson airport many,
many times. I am not sure how they would
function in inclement weather conditions without having a full range of
services available for the people of northern Manitoba. It is hazardous enough to fly through some of
those conditions without having to think for a moment that when you are in the
air you do not have somebody on the ground end of the flight service kind of
guiding you and making sure you are able to reach your destination safely.
* (2210)
There are quite a few airports that the province maintains,
and there has been a reduction in the number of staff years by eight and a
half. Why did we move to the two‑person
operations at the provincial airports in northern Manitoba?
Mr. Findlay: The department is involved with 30 airports
in northern Manitoba; 22 of those 30 airports are manned and about two‑thirds
of those 22 are manned with two people.
So we are creating the same standard of service at all airports that is
deemed to be appropriate and sufficient to supply the services that are
necessary.
(Madam Chairperson in
the Chair)
Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister can then tell me what
functions were eliminated from those airports if you are going to harmonize the
level of service to all of the airports.
Also, can he give me an idea if we are planning to upgrade any of the
northern airports, either by runway condition length, servicing, et cetera?
I know the previous minister had indicated that he had some
thought that maybe the department should be moving in that direction and, in
particular, trying to upgrade some of the runways. I am just wondering what plans the department
has to make any of those changes.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, of the 8.5 positions, 3.5 were
building workers, two were flight officers at Gods Lake, and three were
clerical support staff. With regard to
capital activity in northern airports, this year there was some $685,500 being
spent on northern airports. I will just
give the member a quick breakdown of some of the items here. There is Gods River airport‑‑construction,
$15,000; airport safety equipment, $10,000; airport equipment in a number of
airports, $75,000, terminal roofing at Red Sucker Lake and Brochet, $11,000;
terminal reservations at Norway House, $7,000; shop and fire hall construction,
$115,000 at Brochet, $50,000 at Oxford House; terminal building siding at
various airports, $22,000; purchase of self‑contained fuel tanks at
Shamattawa and Brochet, $60,000; fencing around the airport, at Red Sucker
Lake, $26,000, and at Shamattawa, $84,000; gravel at Gods Lake Narrows,
$200,000; runway improvements in Norway House, $6,500; and a runway survey at
Pukatawagan, $4,000. There were quite a
number of projects in the $685,000.
Mr. Reid: I can see that there is money being spent,
and I am not sure if that is the complete list of projects, and if not, maybe
the minister could just photocopy and send a copy over to the critics at some
point to speed up the process a bit and make it easier for him, so he does not
have to read it into the record.
The minister mentioned some funds for the $685,000 in funds
being expended. Is a portion of those
monies recoverable from Canada under the $495,000?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, no. It is all provincial expenditure.
Mr. Reid: Then the $495,000 is expended for?
Mr. Findlay: The $495,000 the member is referring to is monies
we recover from the federal government for Atmospheric Environment Services at
Berens River, Island Lake and Norway House, plus a subsidy for the Norway House
airport.
Madam Chairperson: Item 4.(d) Northern Airports (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $2,889,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$1,900,200‑‑pass.
4.(e) Marine Services.
Mr. Reid: In prior Estimates the department and the
minister have provided information relating to a summary of the ferry
operations. It gave a breakdown of the
individual ferry operations themselves, their season start and shutdown dates,
hours of operation, the number of operators.
It also gave the traffic flow, passengers and vehicles, year over year. It also gave the expenditures by way of
salaries and maintenance costs as well.
I am wondering if the minister could provide similar
information again to allow us to see the cost of the individual operations.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I have a copy here of
information on the six ferries that we run in the province from breakup to
freeze‑up, with the kind of information the member is looking for. We will just have it as part of the next
package, as opposed to reading it now, if that is okay?
Mr. Reid: That would be fine, Madam Chairperson. I look forward to receiving the information.
The minister said six ferry operations, too. I must have missed something. The annual report makes reference to seven
ferries, and I know there were seven ferries in the past. I am wondering which one has been deleted
from the operations.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member is right. We have talked about seven ferries in the
past. Six are operating now. The one called the Ingmar Carlson ferry
[phonetic] is no longer needed because a bridge has been built in the community
of Cross Lake by Indian and native affairs.
So there is a bridge to replace the ferry, built by federal money.
* (2220)
Mr. Reid: That is a good point that the minister makes,
Madam Chairperson, that federal dollars‑‑which brings me back to
the point I had raised earlier when we were talking about a prior portion of
the Estimates here pertaining to Cross Lake.
It was my understanding that at the conclusion of last week there was an
arrangement that was struck between the arbitrator, the band councils, the
federal government and the provincial government dealing with the bridge at
Pipestone crossing in Cross Lake. What
impact is that going to have on the departmental operations? I am not privy to all of the details to this
point today. Has the agreement been
struck that we are now going to construct a bridge crossing at that point?
Mr. Findlay: At Pipestone?
Mr. Reid: At Pipestone.
Mr. Findlay: This may sound like a cop‑out, Madam
Chairperson, but we are not privy to the discussions that have taken
place. Northern and Native Affairs is,
and you had better ask them. But, at
this stage, we are not directly involved.
Mr. Reid: So then I take it the department has not been
involved in those discussions, even though it is going to impact on your
operations as a department. I would have
thought that if there had been some agreement pertaining to structures that the
department would have been at least included in some of the discussion taking
place. So it seems to me a bit unusual
that they would not be part of the‑‑well then, maybe not part of
the final decision, but being involved in some of the discussion because the
final decision could ultimately impact upon the department. The minister indicated previously that there
was going to be some delay in the planning and design phase of at least two
years, and even with a speed‑up process, I am not sure how much that
could be advanced. That is why I am
asking the question here of what the impact is going to be upon the department.
Mr. Findlay: Well, any information we have from Northern
and Native Affairs is: we are not yet
committed to building a bridge. Even if
the government was committed, it does not automatically mean it comes out of
our budget. That would be for future
discussion as to who is responsible for paying.
Mr. Reid: There has been an elimination of one position
with the regionalization of the Airports and the Marine administrative
resources. Was that position vacant, and
when it says eliminated, where was that eliminated from?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the position eliminated was a
Clerk 3 in Winnipeg, and the individual has been redeployed in the department.
Madam Chairperson: Item 4.(e) Marine Services (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $608,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $454,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 14.4
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$9,630,500 for Highways and Transportation, Engineering and Technical Services,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Oh, I am sorry. I
got ahead of myself again. I apologize.
Item 4.(f) Materials and Research (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister explain, because there are
jobs eliminated here as well, or positions, I should say, one position
eliminated due to the amalgamation of laboratory services. What kind of laboratory services do we do
under the Materials and Research?
Mr. Findlay: The laboratory services here are soil
testing, and there was an amalgamation of those kinds of services with Natural
Resources, which led to the elimination of the one position. All five positions that are eliminated here
are all Winnipeg positions.
Mr. Reid: I take it, then, that if there were people in
them, they were either redeployed within the departments.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the one position I
referred to earlier was vacant, and of the other four, two people have been
redeployed in the department and two are still pending redeployment.
Mr. Reid: What does "pending" mean? Does that mean some decision being made about
their future redeployment within the department or voluntary separation?
Mr. Findlay: The options on the table are to find jobs in
the department or in government when you are on the redeployment list.
Madam Chairperson: 4.(f) Materials and Research (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $1,469,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $501,600‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations $1,009,200‑‑pass.
(g) Traffic Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
895,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $4,688,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 15.4:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$9,630,500 for Highways and Transportation, Engineering and Technical Services,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
5. Transportation Policy and Research (a) Salaries and
Employee Benefits.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairperson, I have quite a number of
questions dealing with policy‑related matters, and I know when we did our
opening statements I made reference to many of them. I suppose we could start off on some issues
that are lingering still, even for a number of years now, that had involved the
department.
I make reference to the Riverton Boat Works. This is an issue that has been unresolved now
for a number of years. It involves a
manufacturing firm located at Riverton, Manitoba. My colleague the member for Interlake (Mr.
Clif Evans) has raised this issue with me and with the former Minister of
Highways and Transportation.
This firm constructed the tug that is currently in service
at Churchill, and through some reasons that are unknown to me, there were
portions of money that were withheld.
* (2230)
This current minister may not be aware of all of the
details. I hope that his staff will be
able to brief him on some of the issues that are outstanding. This is an issue that is still to this day
unresolved, and this firm has had to undergo severe financial hardship as a
result of the failure of the departments of the federal government to pay
monies that were, from my understanding, due and owing and payable to this
firm. The firm has had to take or
initiate legal action in the courts, which has not proceeded to this point, but
they have expressed a willingness to stop any of those legal proceedings if
there was a willingness on the part of both the provincial and federal
governments to sit down at the table and to discuss in a serious way how we can
resolve this matter to the satisfaction of all parties.
I know my colleague the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
has indicated that when he was Minister of Highways and Transportation this
ERDA contract had been signed with the federal government making sure that work
on the construction of the tug was undertaken in Manitoba. We thought at the time that it was a good
project. It was creating jobs in
Manitoba and work for a Manitoba company, but it has turned out that this has
been a nightmare for the company.
I know the minister, through comments that he has made in
this House over the years that I have been here, has expressed an interest in
making sure that Manitoba companies, where they want to compete‑‑and
this company is obviously competing in the private market‑‑should
be given the opportunity, but it appears here to me from my studying of the
file information available that the company was penalized for some reasons that
are unknown to me.
Maybe the minister, through his advisers, can make me aware
if there are some conditions or some outstanding issue that prevents the
department from acting as an advocate on behalf of this firm in communicating
or dealing with the federal government so that we can sit down at the table and
resolve this issue.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, this is an issue that I am sure
the member realizes dates back several years.
It flows out of an ERDA agreement entered into by the province and the
federal government. The contract to
build the tug was strictly between Riverton Boat Works and the federal
government, and there is some dispute between the two parties on, I guess,
various matters. I guess some penalties
kicked in. The end result was that it
would appear that Riverton Boat Works received less money than their costs
were. They initiated court action with
the federal government and prior to that, my predecessor in the department
certainly did try to intercede on the person's behalf to resolve his
differences with the federal government.
Now that there is a court action pending, court decisions
pending, launched by Riverton Boat Works, as the member must realize, it is not
something one should comment on as to what is right, what is wrong, where the
issue is at.
From what staff has just told me, it is a long saga of
significant difficulty for that individual and that company, but I do not think
it is appropriate to comment when the matter is before the courts at this
time. As far as we know, it is still
before the courts. We do not believe
that there has been a resolution.
Mr. Reid: Well, I have had the opportunity to not only
talk with my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) on this matter
on several occasions, and I know he has met with the former Minister of
Highways on this issue. They have
discussed this with the owner of Riverton Boat Works, and maybe members of the
staff were in on some of those meetings as well.
But it is my understanding that the individual involved
from Riverton Boat Works is very much willing to put aside, in fact to stop all
legal actions, to withdraw from that if there is a willingness on the part of
both the provincial government, because they were a party to the ERDA
agreement, and the federal government through its department that was
responsible and signed the original agreement, to sit down at the table to talk
about this issue. It would remove the
legalities from the discussion so that there should not be a concern on the
part of the federal government or the provincial government to discuss this,
because the matter would then not therefore be before the courts.
So there is that willingness on the part of the owner of
the Riverton Boat Works to undertake to do that because he wants to resolve
this issue once and for all so that at least it is not hanging over the heads
of everybody and creating a problem for this person who has obviously lost a
great deal of money.
* (2240)
I know the minister made reference to the fact that there
were some penalties that had kicked in.
It was my understanding from talking with the owner of Riverton Boat
Works, my colleague the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), and reading the
documents involved that there were substantial changes that were made on the
part of the federal government in the contract itself for the way the boat was
constructed, some structural changes and some electrical control changes in the
contract. So if there were some changes
by the federal government, it would seem to me that they on the first part
rendered that contract null and void for the changes they made unless there was
an all‑party agreement there to make those changes.
So there has to be a show of good faith here on the part of
all the parties to sit down. The
Riverton Boat Works owner has made the first step in that show of good faith in
that they would put aside any legal actions.
They would, in fact, stop that if both the provincial government would
sit at the table and the federal government would sit down and discuss the
matter. That is why I am raising it here
today.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I would like to introduce
Rolly Savoie, Director of Transportation Policy, who has joined us.
I think the member realizes this is not an easy issue. It is relatively complex. The provincial government is not directly
involved, but the department has discussed with him‑‑our
understanding is that the federal government will not sit down to any
discussion as long as the court action is pending. So it is a chicken‑and‑egg
situation, I guess. We are not directly
involved, but the department has attempted to talk to both sides.
It seems that the federal government, particularly, has dug
its heels in; there is no discussion as long as there is pending court
action. So at this time it is at a
stalemate, I guess is the bottom line.
Since it is in front of the courts, it is difficult to be talking any
further on the issue, but we have attempted to, it is fair to say, continue to
attempt to get the two sides to come together.
Mr. Reid: In my opinion, for whatever it is worth, it
seems to me to be reasonable and fair, that since the Manitoba government was a
signatory to the original ERDA agreement under which Riverton Boat Works was
awarded the contract for the tug's construction, we can play a mediator's role
here in bringing the two parties together to sit at the table.
Now, I know the minister says it is a chicken‑and‑egg
situation here, but Riverton Boat Works' owner has indicated to us that they
are willing to take the first step, and I am wondering, has this message been
conveyed through the department to the federal Ministry of Transport to allow
them to know that there is a willingness on the part here, because Riverton
does not want to take this, something which would obviously be a very serious
action on their part, to withdraw from any legal direction or course of action
without having some thought that there might be some willingness or some
earnest discussion take place on this matter.
That is why I am asking the minister's department to
undertake to play that mediator's role, and ask whether or not he has
communicated with the federal government on that.
Mr. Findlay: Well, this clearly is a chicken‑and‑egg
situation. The department has discussed
with the federal government if they would do precisely as the member has indicated. Our understanding is that their position is
adamant that they will not discuss the issue until the court action ceases.
Mr. Reid: Has this information been conveyed to the
owner of Riverton Boat Works by the minister's department?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the department has informed him
of that. He wants some guarantee that
the federal government will talk to him if he terminates the action, and the
federal government will not give that assurance. They will not talk about it as long as it is in
front of the courts, period. That is the
position they are taking.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairperson, I know what the minister
is saying, and I am not disagreeing that that is the federal government's
position on this matter, but it seems to me to be unfair to this company and to
its owners that the federal government wants to have everything. They want to have their cake and they want to
eat it, too.
In other words, they want to get rid of the court action,
but they will not give any assurances that they are willing to sit down at the
table and even discuss the issue or at least in some way get the message
through that they are willing to undertake that, which seems to me to be a
totally unreasonable and unfair way for any government to treat any of its people
or any of its companies within the country.
I think that the message should be conveyed to the federal
government in the strongest possible terms that whether the position that was
taken by them was right or wrong or the position taken or the actions taken by
the company were right or wrong, that is not the point here. The point here is how we treat our people and
whether or not we give them the opportunity to sit down to dialogue between the
two parties. Even then, at the end of
the day, if they come to no agreement or no understanding, at least they have
sat down at the table and tried.
I am just wondering if we have conveyed to the federal
government in the strongest possible terms that we do not want and we do not
expect that our people should be treated in this fashion.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, I cannot disagree with
what the member is saying. It is quite
an unfair situation to put Riverton Boat Works into, refusing to talk in any
fashion.
I do not know what all is behind the scenes that causes
them to dig their heels in and to be totally unreasonable in terms of saying,
do this and we will sit down and we will resolve it. There must be something more than we know.
I agree with him; it is quite unreasonable. Nobody could defend that sort of action in
treating an individual. The comments
made earlier about changes in the contract and all that kind of thing, true or
not‑‑there is probably some truth.
There must be a rational way to resolve it. Why they are so dug in, I do not know.
We have attempted to bring the parties together. It is not uncommon to sit down and discuss a
process and resolve it before it goes to court.
For some reason, one side absolutely refuses to in this instance.
I think it is fair to say we will continue to bring
resolution to the process, but rest assured, as we are relating here, our
understanding is the federal government is exceedingly dug in.
Mr. Reid: I will just leave that with the minister
then. I do not expect him, for a minute,
to have a full or complete understanding, having come into the department not
that long ago.
Maybe, if he has an opportunity to confer with his staff on
this matter, he can find if there is some common ground between the two parties
to get them to the table to discuss the matter.
Then maybe at that point if the minister can determine
whether or not there are any conditions for which either Riverton Boat Works,
my colleague the MLA for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) or myself am unaware of
what we should know, maybe a cause or condition for which the federal
government does not want to discuss this issue, maybe the minister can then
relate that to us. Then we will be
further educated on the events surrounding this unfortunate incident for this
company and for Manitobans.
I want to switch and talk a bit about short‑line
railways. We had short‑line railway legislation introduced in this
province last session. I think it was
Bill 33.
* (2250)
At that time, when we were going through committee debate,
the former Minister of Highways said that he was taking this move to introduce
this legislation in anticipation of interest that might come forward from
parties looking to start short‑line or to take over short‑line
railway operations.
Can the minister give me some update on what activities are
taking place with respect to short‑line operations, since the previous
minister had said that there was some interest in, I think it was, the Waskada
line? Has there been any movement on
that? Are there other short‑line
operations, or are people interested in starting short‑line operations
within the province?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I would also like to introduce
Mr. Don Norquay, Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation Policy Planning
and Development Division.
The most current activity in terms of interest in short‑line
operation would be the recent CN announcement that they are calling for
proposals on short‑line operation of the Neepawa and the Rossburn
subs. That is that stretch of track from
Neepawa to Russell. Anyway, it is the
turkey trail, along the turkey trail. It
is about 111 kilometres of track. That
call for proposals went out, I would say, approximately a month ago or maybe
right at the end of May.
CN had indicated at the time that they were interested in
determining if there was somebody prepared to make an offer that they would
consider attractive. If there was not an
attractive offer, they would continue to operate it as it is currently
operated. That would be the best example
that we know of at this time.
The mention of Waskada, I think, comes more from the
community or people in that area saying this should be run as a short‑line
operation as opposed to‑‑whether it is CN or CP, I am not sure‑‑being
interested in turning it over to a short‑line operation.
The department is currently drafting the regulations that
will go with the Manitoba railways act, and as far as we can see at this point,
the most likely application would be the turkey trail if CN accepts any of the
proposals that are put in front of them.
Mr. Reid: Is this the only line that is currently being
considered, or have there been other applicants come forward expressing an
interest? Have the railways mentioned
any other lines that may be candidates for short‑line operation within
the province?
Mr. Findlay: There is one other that we are aware that
some discussions are occurring around, and that is the Lyleton sub. It is a CP track. There seems to be some degree of interest on
behalf of CP and the potential operator of that short line, but how close it is
to concluding an arrangement, we are not aware at this stage.
Mr. Reid: I would imagine the department would have to
be involved in some way if the regs have not been drafted for the legislation
that was from last year. I would hope
the department would be aware of, whether or not there was any sense of urgency
on the part of either of the main railways or any potential short‑line
operators to assume those operations, that we have the necessary regs in place
prior to the application for transfer from the main lines to short‑line
operators. So is the department‑‑have
they been apprised of any sense of urgency of any of those potential short‑line
operations?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, at this stage, the
department is developing the regulations.
We do not believe there is an immediate sense of urgency. If an individual approaches the department,
they will be given some idea, some general understanding of what the proposed
rules and regulations will be. There is
a meeting in Toronto next week dealing with railway safety, rules and
regulations for across the country, it is fair to say, looking for
standardization. Coming out of that
meeting, we may be in a better position to know what we might consider as
appropriate for the province.
* (2300)
We understand that in Saskatchewan and Alberta, though they
do not have any rules or regulations for short‑line rails, they are
operating them in those two provinces, so I guess it is fair to say there is a
precedent set. If we were not totally
ready, there would be a mechanism to accommodate somebody, but we do expect
that we will be ready with rules and regulations by the time anybody's application
is formally before us.
Mr. Reid: Has either of the main railways given the
department any indication on what they sense could be appropriate candidates
for short‑line operation?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, no, they have not.
Mr. Reid: So then the department is unaware, I guess, until
the applications come forward on what lines would be candidates then. From my understanding in the last Estimates,
the department was involved with some studies with the federal government
dealing with rail line shipments on what would constitute a national rail
network. Have the results of that study
come out yet, and can the minister tell me what portions of the Manitoba rail
network would constitute the portion of the national rail network?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the discussion on the national
rail network that the member refers to has broken down in terms of discussion,
and we are not aware that there has been any discussion for the last nine
months. It broke down over a number of
issues. At the council of ministers
meeting at the beginning of July in Alberta, we are expecting some status
report on that, but at this stage the discussions are in limbo.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister tell me on what points the
discussion broke down?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, two of the issues that appeared
to cause the discussions to come to a halt were the designation of lines across
the country, and secondly, the line to Churchill.
Mr. Reid: Obviously, both of them would be important to
Manitoba. Since those were two of the
stumbling points, what was the position that was taken and who took the
position that caused the line to Churchill to be one of the stumbling points
where they could not come to an understanding?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the member is right. Both of those issues would be critically
important to Manitoba, and certainly the Churchill line, we deem it as a line
that should be declared as of national strategic significance.
I think it is fair to say that most every province has a
line that they consider as pretty important to them for which there is
disagreement by some of the other players around the table. It is fair to say there are several lines
that certain provinces think are important and other members think are not
important, and on that basis, there was agreement not to continue the
discussions.
Mr. Reid: Is the minister saying then that it was other
provinces of Canada that were opposed to the continuation of the Churchill
line, or was it the federal government that was taking that position?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, when you are in meetings
and people take positions, I think it would be very inappropriate to comment on
who said what in a particular meeting, particularly when I was not there. It is fair to say that there was disagreement
around the table amongst the various participants, and I would assume the
negotiations will commence again in some fashion.
Another item of concern in the process was, if you declare
a national network, what does that mean for any line that is not considered in
that network, like branch lines? I think
before you commit to saying, that is in the national network, that is not, you
have to know what the outcome is for those that are not; what kind of process
does that kick into motion. There are an
awful lot of unanswered questions, so it is difficult to make decisions on some
items until you know the outcome down the road for that decision.
I would prefer‑‑I think it would be fair to all
parties not to say these ones are for and those ones are against. It would not serve any useful purpose at this
stage. I would hope that negotiations
can recommence so that we can strengthen our network across the country.
Mr. Reid: I do not want to jeopardize the
negotiations. What I am trying to say
here is that if we have opponents to our position here in Manitoba, for which I
sense that in this House we have some understanding or some agreement amongst
all the parties as to the importance of Churchill to the province, at least to
this point in time‑‑I mean, it remains to be seen what happens this
shipping season with Churchill, but if we knew who our opponents were and what
our opponents were saying, then we could take a position that would be in
support of what activities the government was trying to undertake to facilitate
a continuation of the Churchill line operating well into the future and the
port itself.
* (2310)
So that is why I asked who the opponents are, because if
you know who your opponents are and what they are saying, then you can
formulate a position that would be in support of what it is that the government
of the day is trying to do from an opposition standpoint. So if we could do something that was
supportive of what you were trying to accomplish, if we agreed with that, then
we could do that in a public way, but if we do not know who our opponents are
or what our opponents are saying, then we cannot take that position. All we can do is take a general position,
which we have many times over the past number of years.
So that is why we asked that question. I hope it does come up at the minister's
meeting, to resume that. I know the
railways for a number of years now have been looking at going to a core network
of rail lines across the country, and I have never understood the term core
network of rail lines, because there were never any lines or anybody saying
what those lines were going to be.
So it creates some confusion for the people who are even a
little bit knowledgeable of the industry, of what the intent or the direction
is going to be.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I prefer to leave it this way,
that we know we have support from the western provinces at the western
Premiers' meeting. Routinely and
continually, support to Churchill has been endorsed and re‑endorsed, but
beyond that, I do not know of anybody that stands up and says Churchill has a
long‑term economic significance for western Canada or Manitoba. So I would have to say that the Territories
and the four western provinces have continued to reconfirm their support for
the national significance of Churchill.
Mr. Reid: I get a better sense of the picture now that
the minister has explained it in those terms, and it is the same problem that
Manitoba has been facing for a number of years from certain opponents of
this. So I appreciate what the minister
is saying on that. So conditions have
not changed in that sense.
I asked last year if there were any studies that were done
relating to potential cost to the department with any rail line abandonment,
and for some time I had been contacting the NTA in Saskatoon, finding out if
there were any applications for abandonment in the province. For a long period of time there were none.
Now, I am not sure what the most recent position is,
whether the main line railways have applied for abandonment orders. Maybe the minister can make me aware if the
department knows of any. Have there been
any studies undertaken by the department to determine, first, what the
anticipated costs are going to be by way of either capital or maintenance
programs for any rail line abandonment which would ultimately cause a
transferring of the traffic from rail to road?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the department has certainly
attempted to quantify the costs of shifting traffic from rail to road. At this stage, it is fair to say there has
not been agreement from the federal government on what those costs are. I know in a former life that federal
governments continue to say there is no cost or impact. We all know that is not fully true.
An Honourable Member: Even the railway said that.
Mr. Findlay: Yes. I
think it is also fair to say that is why we passed the short line railway act,
because if they do not see it economically viable to continue to operate a
line, as opposed to abandonment, why not convert it to a short line so you
continue to move the commodities down that track, as opposed to on the road, in
a more cost‑effective manner.
So that is why short line railways are seen as a
significantly viable option. It saves us
the cost of those commodities travelling down the roads, in an increased
sense. So we are not aware of any
abandonment orders at this stage in the province, and it is an ongoing
discussion point, negotiation point.
Clearly, Saskatchewan faces, probably to a greater extent, similar
problems, a lot more miles of line that could be abandoned and a road network
that is much larger than ours and not in anywhere near as good a shape, their
secondary roads, to what ours are. So
there is an impact, there is no question.
If we can operate short lines in a cost‑effective manner, it will
definitely save the roads in the future.
Mr. Reid: I asked if there were any hard facts that the
department has, and whether the federal government agrees with those numbers or
not is of no consequence to me. I mean,
I am interested in what the experts in our department are telling the minister
of what the potential costs are going to be.
The federal government can have their own set of books and their own set
of figures, and how they arrive at those is up to them. I am impressed with what our experts are
telling us here in this province.
Mr. Findlay: As somebody who lives in the country‑‑the
member has probably lived most of his life in the city and needs to have‑‑[interjection]
Rural Transcona, okay.
An awful lot has changed in terms of how commodities have
moved over the last, I would say, 20 years.
We have gone from a position‑‑we have to go back maybe 20,
25, 30 years ago‑‑where almost everything of bulk commodity that
came into a rural community came by rail.
Fuel went to trucks; fertilizer went to trucks; special crops went to
trucks; equipment coming from manufacturers comes in by trucks; cars that come
to dealerships come in by trucks. So,
over the course of time, we have seen a continuous movement of commodities off
of rail onto trucks, probably for a variety of reasons.
The progression from rail to road is not new; it is not
something that is about to happen. I am
just trying to relate, it is a fact that has been happening in an ongoing
way. As that has happened, it is very
clear shift of the cost of maintaining that infrastructure that has been
shouldered by the province. There has
always been talk about the grain moving from rail to road, and I personally
wonder if there is going to be any greater significance in what I have just
described as the movement of commodities off of rail onto road. It is a good question.
* (2320)
There have been studies done. There was one done by ADI Engineering. We are just not clear whether it has been
released publicly at this point or not.
It was done in the late '80s. It
was not commissioned by this department.
I am just not sure by whom it was.
We have done some work within the department, too.
As time has evolved, there has been a lot of change in
movement of commodities. Do not think
for a moment that it is something new or it is something about to happen. It has been going on, on an ongoing basis.
If one has watched what is happening in grain commodity
movements this last year with the tremendous movement to the United States,
trucks have really been moving large volumes of wheat, canola and barley into
the United States, and that will probably continue to happen.
There are a number of reasons why that is happening, but it
is happening. It is also efficiency of
pickup and delivery. Just to tell you
from a grain point of view, if a truck is hauling from a farm to a location,
the truck can pick it up right in the farmer's yard and save the cost of
transporting it to the elevator, save the elevation costs, which you are forced
to pay if it is going into a rail car.
If it is going into a truck, you avoid those costs.
It is not just a matter of the rail competing with the
truck in terms of transportation costs.
There are some other associated costs that can be avoided, and the same
at the other end, in terms of handling costs.
The truck pulls right into the buyer's yard and unloads. There are no in‑between costs.
So there are a number of factors at play as to why this is
happening. [interjection] Well, I pay taxes and that is how it is done.
Also, in the bulk commodities coming to the farmer‑‑as
I mentioned, fuel, fertilizer, equipment and all that‑‑we are
paying for that road wear and tear of getting them there.
It has just been an evolution that is continuing, and one
would wonder why the railways have not been more aggressive in trying to
recapture some of that lost volume. I do
not know.
Mr. Reid: I still did not get any numbers out of this,
and I am still left wondering if there are any numbers or any studies have been
undertaken by the department.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, we can supply what numbers
we have.
Mr. Reid: Even off the record is fine.
Mr. Findlay: As I say, the ADI study, we know it has been
done. We are not sure that it has been
publicly released. We will make the
member aware of what we have in whatever fashion we can.
Mr. Reid: Thank you for your indulgence, Madam
Chairperson.
There had been some discussions, and I know the minister
and his colleagues and I and my colleagues disagree on the issue of whether the
payments should be continued to the railway or to the producer. But even the head of CP Rail is now saying
that, if you change the method of payment, there are going to be significant
losses for the railways, with a shift of the traffic‑flow patterns, and
that a lot of that is going to move into the trucking market.
This is a position that obviously the railways do not want
to see, and this is one of the reasons why we have been saying for such a long
time now that we have to maintain the payments to the railways, not that we
want to see the railways get the money, because it would be more advantageous
for them‑‑obviously, it would help them in some degree to offset
their costs‑‑but we are doing this because we think that it is both
in the best interests of the producers and in the best interests of the
railways and the best interests of the provinces. So everybody is in a win‑win situation
by continuing that.
In that sense, I do not understand why the department and
why the government is taking the position of move the payment to the producers
versus the railways, because what we are in essence doing here is, from my
personal opinion at least, taking the position of supporting the producers of
western Canada at the expense of rail operations because they will ultimately
be the loser in losses of bulk shipment of grain products. Even the head of CP Rail is now saying that
publicly.
Mr. Findlay: Well, Madam Chair, this has been an item for
discussion that has been going on for years and years, and this Crow benefit
dates all the way back to 1897.
An Honourable Member: Before my time.
Mr. Findlay: Before all our time. As I said in the letter that we sent to
federal Minister Young, this is a right of Confederation. It was a trade‑off for the federal
effort to put the manufacturing processing sector of Canada in Ontario and
Quebec.
It is a God‑given right that we have this out here to
decrease our costs as producers of getting raw commodities to export. We have a long way to go to get to salt
water, which was the way of the past.
Pretty well all our exports up till very recent years went to Thunder
Bay or to the west coast or to Churchill to move to the world market.
There has been quite a change in recent years in terms of
where a lot of those bulk commodities are going, and more and more of them are
going south, which do not attract the Crow benefit. The Crow benefit is for moving east and west.
There is a considerable dispute in the farm community and
in the industry as to where that should go.
It has been an ongoing point of discussion and the producer payment
panel has been set up, after several other studies and analyses and discussion
processes have occurred, to bring forward some recommendations as to how to
evolve the method of payment or whether to evolve it at all. They have not reported, at least I am not
aware that it is publicly available, their final report. Whether they reported to the federal Minister
of Agriculture or Transport, I am not aware at this point. It is close to being finalized, if not done.
I think the member would be well advised to await their
ultimate recommendation as to what to do, given the fact that a lot has
changed, particularly in the last five years, as to what commodities are
moving, where they are moving.
The option that the federal Minister of Transport seems to
be floating as a trial balloon is elimination of this right. That is what we are most violently opposed
to. Absolutely not. It was never a serious discussion point. I will have to admit that three or four years
ago the federal government kind of lofted it onto the table and we quickly
kicked it off the table. It was a
totally unacceptable option. If they had
left it on the table any longer, the discussions were over. They removed it from the table.
Now for Mr. Young to come forward and make the comments he
has made, not once, not twice, but three times, and the third time was pretty
strong in his speech in Toronto, we are totally opposed to any principle of
elimination. We are opposed to any
reductions, and there have been 15 percent reductions in the last two federal
budgets, because we think it will have a significant negative impact on not
only the farm community and the transportation industry, but an awful lot of
rural communities across western Canada.
Until you have really lived and dealt with this, I do not
think anybody in eastern Canada can have any understanding of the emotion
around this issue, but it is one of those issues that has to evolve, given
changes in circumstances, and certainly there have been some changes in where
commodities move. It is one of those items
that is called, particularly through the west coast, an export subsidy, and
under the GATT process, reductions do occur, some 36 percent over six
years. They say they have already
reduced it 15 percent, so Mr. Young's comments, that you have to eliminate it
to live up to international trade agreements, is absolutely wrong‑‑absolutely
wrong. Again, he just does not
understand the relationship between the two issues, so we responded as we saw
fit, representing the transportation industry and the agriculture industry of
Manitoba.
So the option of elimination, we reject. I am prepared to await the recommendations of
the producer payment panel that we will put before the federal government and
take it from there.
* (2330)
Mr. Reid: The minister is correct. It was a right of Confederation. I know even some of our past leaders‑‑going
back a number of years, the former Premier of Saskatchewan Tommy Douglas made
reference to that fact on many occasions, that never, never, never will they
ever give up the Crow benefit. Even way
back in those years, it was obviously coming under attack by certain forces
outside of western Canada. That
obviously has not changed over the years.
The minister made reference to the fact that he was having
a meeting with the other Ministers of Transport in July. He has made reference to the fact that there
will some meetings dealing with discussions that had broken down nine months
ago dealing with the national rail network.
What other items does the minister know of that will be on
the agenda for that meeting, that will be of Manitoba importance?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I will give a brief answer, but
as soon as I finish the answer I would ask for a four‑minute recess, not
five but four.
I just want to add a little more to my last comments, the
member being from Transcona. I want him
to be aware that although certain people make representation to him that the
method of payment has to stay the way it is because you do not want to impact
the farmer, I want him to know that since WGTA was changed in 1983‑84,
the cost that the producer paid at that time was around $4 a tonne. It did not change much until '86‑87,
and since then, it has gone from $5 a tonne up to over $11 a tonne. So the impact on the farmer has been
consistently more, more, more, and the actual cost that the federal government
is paying has actually come down over that course of time. So there has been a cost shift of the costs
from the Crow benefit paid by the federal government to the producers' pocket.
I do not know that many producers have really been aware
that there has been that shift. It is
kind of one of those costs that is in the grain ticket that he does not see,
because he has not been paying attention for so many years, can nothing change,
and there has been a change. The
increased cost, if it continues that way, there is a continuous cost impact on
the producer.
The issues on the agenda:
I am sure that the comments of Mr. Young will be on the agenda, several
of them; impact on the WGTA issue; the National Highways Program is going to be
on; the air bilaterals will be on there; the CN‑CP merger will be on
there; VIA Rail will be on there; weights and dimensions; the rail network, as
I mentioned earlier, should be. There
are a few more issues, but I would imagine those are the major ones.
Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to take a
four‑minute recess? This committee
will reconvene at 11:39 p.m.
The committee recessed at 11:34 p.m.
After Recess
The committee resumed at 11:38 p.m.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairperson, I thank the minister for
the information relating to the agenda for the upcoming meeting. Obviously, all of those items will be and
have been for a long time important to Manitoba. So it would be interesting to hear if‑‑and
maybe I should ask the minister, are those meetings due to take place within
the first week of July, and will there be an opportunity for the minister to
report back to the House by way of ministerial statement on any discussions or
any progress from those meetings?
Mr. Findlay: The ministers' meeting is scheduled for July
7 in Calgary. On July 6, there will be a
meeting of what we refer to now as Team West, which comes out of the Western
Premiers' meeting, which has asked the four provinces and two territories to
work together progressively on transportation‑related issues. They have asked Manitoba to be the lead on
that, and clearly, there are enough issues there for us to get very active on the
western Canadian point of view. So it
will be the 6th and the 7th. If there
are issues of major decision that warrant a ministerial statement, it will
happen, but I will commit to the member, I will report back to him on the broad
scope of what is discussed, the issues, to give him an update.
* (2340)
Mr. Reid: I appreciate that from the minister. I would be interested to hear if any progress
could be made on any of those issues.
The minister made reference, too, to two points. There is a meeting on rail safety taking
place where his assistant deputy, I believe, is going to attend the
meetings. How did that come about? Is that an invitation from the federal
government, and what issues, specifically, will be discussed relating to rail
safety? I always thought that fell under
the federal government's jurisdiction, or is it something new, a new change
that is taking place?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the rail safety meeting that the
member refers to is sponsored by the Railway Association of Canada, and the
issue is to discuss harmonization of rail safety across the country. We will have one person present.
Mr. Reid: Rail safety has always been important to us
considering the magnitude or the potential magnitude of consequences that can
happen as a result of rail accidents. I
mean, we have witnessed those here in Manitoba on more than one occasion, and I
know in northwestern Ontario, the area with which I am familiar, even to this
day equipment is sitting in the bush not picked up by the railways. There seems to be a problem on the railway in
how they react to and clean up after some of their derailments. I am sure that would enter into part of the
discussions, or, at least, I hope it will.
It was my understanding that the University of Manitoba
Transport Institute has in past years received some grant money from the
province, and that has been slowly eroded over the last few years. There have been always ongoing concerns on
the part of the railways with respect to the costs that they have to pay or
bear by way of taxation levels either through the property tax on their
holdings or their right of ways, as well as their fuel tax, and I know this
government has made some changes on the fuel tax aspect, although we have
expressed our concerns because it was never tied to any job retention for
Manitoba.
Has the U of M been utilized, or is the minister
contemplating utilizing this facility to do any studies to determine the
differential that exists in operations between rail and trucking, to determine
whether or not the playing field has been levelled so that both modes, or all
modes, can compete on an even basis?
Mr. Findlay: I am glad that the member acknowledges that
we have reduced the fuel taxes for railroads, and the figure is actually 13.6
cents down to 6.3 cents. So it is a
fairly significant reduction, but the member would like to have a caveat on
it. Well, I wish the world was that
simple.
I think the member will recognize‑‑knowing that
they do complain about the taxes they pay‑‑when the taxes decrease
it does make you more competitive as a place for them to do business, and
therein it is an automatic caveat if somebody in some other jurisdiction does
not reduce it. I think they pay a
penalty in terms of potential jobs, potential movement of trains through their
area.
With regard to UMTI:
instead of a $50,000 grant we moved to fee for service for our services
up to and around $50,000 per year. So
that is the so‑called level of funding, but on a fee‑for‑service
basis for various types of projects that we might have them undertake for us
over the course of the year.
Mr. Reid: So has the department undertaken any studies then
to determine whether or not the playing field has been levelled between the
railways and the trucking to allow them to compete on an equal footing? Because it was my understanding that the
railways were still concerned about the level of taxation that they are paying,
not only on their property holdings in larger centres by way of yards or shop
operations, but also their rights‑of‑way, which to my understanding
they have to pay taxation to the different R.M.s.
Has the department undertaken any studies to determine what
level of taxation exists in that area, because I know the railways have made
representation to us? They want to
eliminate that. I am wondering if there
has been any discussion on that aspect of it.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, we have not commissioned
any studies directly with UMTI on the issue.
A study was carried out by the Transportation Association of Canada, and
I will give the member some figures. The
study does show that, and I probably preface the figures by saying that the
federal government, I guess is fair to say, does not accept the figures fully
because they do show a considerable difference, and the railways have argued
that they are competitively disadvantaged relative to trucks and relative to
the United States.
I will give the member percent of revenues paid as taxes by
railroads and by trucks. In the United
States, in both cases, about 8 percent of their revenue is paid as taxes by
both railroads and by truckers. In
Canada, the truckers pay approximately 8 percent of their revenue towards
taxes, and this study would indicate that the railways are paying about 14
percent of their revenue as taxes. Now
this is on a Canada‑wide basis, and our recent reductions in fuel tax
would have narrowed that gap or narrowed that difference in Manitoba. To what extent, I do not have the figures
here.
Those are figures that exist. Not everybody accepts them, but even if they
are off by 50 percent, they do show that there is a competitive disadvantage to
railroads in Canada versus trucks and versus rail in the United States.
* (2350)
We all know everybody likes to pay less tax, but I do not
know where we get the revenue to run all the activities everybody wants
government to participate in.
Mr. Reid: That is a valid point or comment that the
minister makes. That is why it has
always been our position that if you are going to give up something by way of a
loss of tax revenue, that you get something in return so that at least there be
some, as my Leader called it, a quid pro quo, you get something in return for
it. We wanted to get jobs in return so
that if people are working, they are paying the taxes. They are taking that money, and you have the
spin effect or the multiplying effect on it.
It creates other opportunities and maybe offsets a better portion of the
losses that revenues of the railways would have been paying, so we have had, at
the same time, people employed. That is
why we have taken that position.
I guess, if I wanted to find out about the policy with
respect to rural municipalities, I would contact the minister's colleague and
find out if there are any decisions or any discussions taking place with that
department, and I will do that at some future point.
I want to switch a bit here to talking about
Churchill. There had been some
negotiations that had been ongoing back in September of 1991 wherein the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) signed an agreement with Russia, the Arctic Bridge
agreement. It was dealing with trade
between Russia, in particular through Churchill and Murmansk. We were hopeful that it would create some
economic opportunities for Manitoba, but to this point, I am unaware of any
changes in there.
It was my understanding in the last Estimates, when I asked
the former minister about who was representing whom in the exchanges that were
taking place, the minister then referenced Caribou Ventures, I think it was
called. Can the minister tell me who
Caribou Ventures is? Are they
representing a provincial government department, or are they representing
Russia in these matters?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the member does not have the
sequence of events quite right but not too far off. The Premier had gone to Russia in '91. A subsequent trip, I believe it was September
'92, I was there with a group of business people from Manitoba looking at the
economic opportunities in the Ukraine and Russia. I was there as Minister of Agriculture, and
Mr. Stefanson was there as Minister of I, T and T. He actually signed the Arctic Bridge
agreement, which was the result of the Premier being there the year before.
The purpose of the agreement was to see if there was the
ability to stimulate two‑way trade between the two northern ports in some
commodities that maybe had not been considered in the past. Caribou Ventures is a consultant retained by
the Manitoba government to come up with an analysis of what other opportunities
might exist for trade between Churchill and Murmansk, and we would hope that in
the process of that study some meaningful opportunities are identified.
In terms of departments involved: Northern Affairs is involved, I, T and T is
involved, Highways is involved.
Mr. Reid: If all those departments are involved, then
the minister must know who they are and who are the representatives of Caribou
consultants or Caribou Ventures, whatever their name is. I am not sure what the actual name of the
company is. I have attempted to look it
up in the phone book, through the Henderson Directory, in any source. I mean, after the minister told me of this
last year, I had no way of knowing who these people are.
Can the minister tell me‑‑because there has
obviously been some face‑to‑face contact within the department with
the representatives of Caribou Ventures‑‑who are the
representatives of Caribou Ventures?
What are their names?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we do not have the list of names
here today. We will bring it back the
next time, of the individuals. Our
understanding is they are Manitobans, that the individuals of Caribou Ventures
are Manitobans, but we do not have the list of names here. We will supply them the next time.
* (0000)
Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister then could bring back
information relating to any Order‑in‑Council that might be in place
hiring this company, since there is obviously an agreement, to the part of
three or four government departments hiring this Caribou Ventures to act on our
behalf? I mean I have not located any
Order‑in‑Council on hiring this company, and I want to know how
they are getting paid for the services they are performing for the
government. So maybe at the same time
when the minister brings back the names of the Caribou consultants or Ventures
representatives, he can bring back how they are getting paid, as well.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being past 10 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): The hour being after 10 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).