LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Monday, June 27, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: The Clerk will read.
ACCESS Program Funding
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:
WHEREAS under the ACCESS program hundreds of students from
disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to get post‑secondary education
and training; and
WHEREAS these students have gone on to successful careers
in a variety of occupations, including nurses, teachers, social workers,
engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal government has eliminated their support
of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has cut support by 11
percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in 1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment has already dropped from over 900 to
roughly 700 students due to previous cuts; and
WHEREAS the provincial government, in addition to cutting
support for the ACCESS program by over $2 million in the current year, is also
turning it into a student loans program which effectively dismantles the ACCESS
program.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative
Assembly request the Minister of Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to
consider restoring the funding to ACCESS program.
Railway Traffic Safety
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Leonard Evans).
It complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Mr. Speaker: Yes.
The Clerk will read.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:
WHEREAS there have been two recent serious railway
accidents in Brandon involving children; and
WHEREAS many residential buildings are near railway tracks
in Brandon and in urban communities throughout the province; and
WHEREAS many units owned by Manitoba Housing have no rear
yard fences, making it difficult to keep small children in the safety of their
back yards; and
WHEREAS it is important that everything reasonable be done
to enhance the safety of children, including steps that would minimize future
possible accidents involving railways.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative
Assembly request the Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) to consider the
installation of fences in back yards of residential units owned by Manitoba
Housing, particularly in those near railways.
AND FURTHER your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly will request the Minister of Highways and Transportation
(Mr. Findlay) to encourage and promote improved safety conditions to protect
young children from railway and other traffic accidents.
AND FURTHER your petitioners humbly pray that the
Legislative Assembly will request the Minister of Highways and Transportation
to review this issue of railway traffic safety with the federal Minister of
Transport to enhance and promote a greater degree of safety in the vicinity of
railway trackage with particular reference to small children.
Pharmacare Benefit Levels
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Edwards). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules (by leave). Is it the will of
the House to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The petition of the
undersigned residents of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:
WHEREAS universality is
a fundamental principle in the Canada Health Act and should apply to Manitoba's
health care system including the Pharmacare program;
WHEREAS since the
current Conservative government was elected in Manitoba the Pharmacare
deductible paid by families has increased 82 percent and the deductible for
seniors has increased by 72 percent;
WHEREAS the recoverable
portion for expenditures in excess of the deductible amount has gone down from
80 percent to 70 percent for seniors and 60 percent for all other Manitobans;
WHEREAS as a result many
Manitobans will not be able to afford necessary medications prescribed by their
doctor resulting in increased hospitalization costs in the long run;
WHEREAS this will
continue to drive up Manitoba's annual health care expenditure of $1.8 billion
and is not in the best interests of Manitobans.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of
Health (Mr. McCrae) to consider restoring Pharmacare benefits to their previous
level.
ACCESS Program Funding
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Friesen). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of this House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read?
An Honourable Member: Dispense.
Mr. Speaker: Dispense.
The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that:
WHEREAS under the ACCESS
program hundreds of students from disadvantaged backgrounds have been able to
get post‑secondary education and training; and
WHEREAS these students
have gone on to successful careers in a variety of occupations, including
nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers amongst others; and
WHEREAS the federal
government has eliminated their support of the ACCESS program; and
WHEREAS the provincial
government has cut support by 11 percent in 1993 and a further 20 percent in
1994; and
WHEREAS the enrollment
has already dropped from over 900 to roughly 700 students due to previous cuts;
and
WHEREAS the provincial
government, in addition to cutting support for the ACCESS program by over $2
million in the current year, is also turning it into a student loans program
which effectively dismantles the ACCESS program.
WHEREFORE your
petitioners humbly pray that the Legislative Assembly request the Minister of
Education and Training (Mr. Manness) to consider restoring the funding to
ACCESS program.
* (1335)
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 218‑‑The Public Schools
Amendment Act
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. James (Mr. Edwards), that leave be given to introduce Bill 218, The
Public Schools Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur les écoles publiques),
and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion presented.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, there is a necessity in order
for The Public Schools Amendment Act‑‑to see brought into it more
parents' rights and responsibilities. We
also believe that it is time that we acknowledge in The Public Schools Act
learning disabilities as a part of it, and this is, in fact, what this
particular bill tries to accomplish.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the Elwick Community School forty‑five Grade 5 students
under the direction of Mr. Martin Kashty.
This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for
The Maples (Mr. Kowalski).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Goods and Services Tax
Government Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Tomorrow, Finance ministers are meeting, dealing with the
proposed changes by the federal parliamentary committee to the goods and
services tax in this country.
The federal parliamentary committee has proposed
integration with the provincial taxes.
It leaves open the issue of harmonizing with food and prescription
drugs, and it leaves a number of other items on the agenda that, clearly, are
not a scrapping of the GST, but rather a change of the GST to another name with
different applications and different harmonizations.
I know this government is opposed to the hidden nature of
the proposed change, and I would like to ask the Premier, what will Manitoba's
position be at that Finance ministers meeting?
Will it be to scrap the tax, rather than to harmonize the tax with
Manitoba?
* (1340)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, our government, of course, as I
have indicated publicly, is more than surprised. We are shocked at the position that is being
taken by the federal Liberal government.
They ran for public office on the basis of scrapping the GST.
I have said before that the former Conservative government,
in the course of its consultations leading up to the GST‑‑and I know
that I do not have to tell people in this House how much that tax was opposed
by people of all political stripes across this country‑‑in their
consultations, they went throughout Canada and were told three things.
One was that the public did not want to have that tax
applied to groceries and medical supplies, did want to see it as visible so
that it could not be arbitrarily buried in the cost and then increased, as it
has been doubled in some European countries where it is buried, and finally,
did not want to have it harmonized, because implicit in harmonization is a
transference of the load of that tax off the producers and onto the consumers,
and secondarily, of course, it would force us to then put the tax on books and
all sorts of things that we currently do not put it on, legal fees, accounting
fees and, obviously, groceries and medical supplies.
For all those reasons, the public was overwhelmingly
opposed to those three elements, and even the former Conservative government
rejected those elements. We are not
going to accept that as the answer, that we have to live with that on behalf of
the taxpayers of Manitoba, that we now have to harmonize it, that we now have
to accept that transference off the producers and onto the consumers of
Manitoba, that we now have to apply it to a whole net and basket of goods and
services that we do not tax, such as books, such as legal and accounting fees,
such as groceries and medical supplies.
That is not an acceptable answer to Manitoba, and that is
the position that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) will take forward.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we were opposed to the original
GST, and we remain opposed to the proposed alternative GST that is now before
the parliamentary committee.
When I asked this question to the Premier on May 2 during
his Estimates, he indicated that we would not be taking a position prior to the
parliamentary committee reporting, but we would be taking a position after the
parliamentary committee had reported and prior to the Finance ministers'
meeting.
Could the Premier table today the written position that
Manitoba will table with the Finance ministers meeting tomorrow in Vancouver?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, if the
Leader of the Opposition has had the opportunity to read the House of Commons
committee report, it deals with some 20 alternatives. They are recommending the GST under another
name. The federal Finance minister, to
date, has not put forth his position on that report. He is waiting for the meetings that will take
place tomorrow and Wednesday.
So, in one respect, though we have a Commons committee
report, we have heard no position yet from the federal Finance minister. We will be receiving his position tomorrow,
and, obviously, that will all be part of our discussions.
As the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has said, we oppose what the
House of Commons committee is recommending for all the reasons that the Premier
has outlined, and, to date, we have not seen an alternative suggested from the
federal government or the House of Commons committee that is acceptable to us,
but we will let the discussions unfold over the next two days and see what
other alternatives the federal government might be promoting.
It is an election promise of theirs, as the Leader of the
Opposition knows. They are the party
that ran on the basis of replacing the GST.
They have taken on the responsibility of at least putting forward some
reasonable alternatives, and what we have seen so far are absolutely
unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
Analysis Tabling Request
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the provincial government did
provide their position with the last GST in writing. In answers to questions on November 13 from
the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs), then the Leader of the
Opposition, there was an analysis by the provincial Finance minister on the
number of jobs that would be lost in the short term and the projection from the
Minister of Finance that there would be jobs gained in the medium term.
Could the Minister of Finance today table in the House all
the analysis of the impact of the federal parliamentary committee's report, its
impact on consumers, its impact on low‑income people, medium‑income
people, and its impact on jobs and the economy?
Could the minister table that today in the House, so that
the public of Manitoba can be involved in this debate, this very important
debate? This tax is hated, I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, by the majority of Manitobans. Its change is probably the most important
issue we are going to be dealing with this week in terms of public policy, and
I think Manitobans deserve the full impact of proposed changes and our analysis
of what that would mean for Manitoba families.
* (1345)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I agree
with the Leader of the Opposition that Manitobans deserve the full analysis,
all of the information and so on.
What I see coming out of the meetings over the next two
days in part might be a position of the federal government, in part might be a
process, and we certainly intend to have maximum opportunity for discussion
with members of the Manitoba public.
We have done some initial analysis, but at this particular
point in time, as I say, we do not have a final position of the federal
government. What we have seen in terms
of the recommendation of the Commons committee, there is information that we
have prepared to indicate that a family of four in Manitoba, if the GST is now
put on basic groceries and prescription drugs, would pay approximately between
$300 and $400 more per year.
There is also a myth out there that through harmonization,
provincial sales taxes across Canada can actually be reduced. The reason for that myth is because if you
harmonize with the GST, there would be a process of input tax credits. So there would not be a reduction in many
PSTs across Canada. In fact, if the
objective was to stay revenue neutral, there would have to be an increase in
provincial sales tax in a good number of provinces.
There are many myths out there, so I agree with the Leader
of the Opposition in terms of the maximum information. We have done some preliminary analysis on
impacts on jobs. There is no doubt that,
in the short term, there would be a negative impact on jobs.
We want to wait to see what happens over the next two days
as this issue develops more focus in terms of starting to provide information
around a direction that we see the federal government heading. We have the information of the Commons
committee, and we will see what happens in the next two days.
Public Accounts Committee
Winnipeg Jets
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the
Premier.
This morning at a media briefing, the chairperson of the
Burns committee indicated that he would be willing to brief all members of this
Legislature in terms of the findings of the committee and in terms of some of
the implications of the report they have submitted to this Legislature through
the Premier's tabling that report after Question Period on Friday morning.
Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions, we have asked the
Premier whether he would call Mr. Burns to the Public Accounts committee, so
that all MLAs could be involved in the findings in this report and so the
public could see the debate and the issues before the committee, and, also, so
the Auditor could look at some of the numbers, quite frankly, that are missing
from the Burns report‑‑there are a number of vague areas in that
report‑‑and so that we could have some basis of understanding what
the bottom‑line numbers are and the impact of its full report for all
MLAs.
I would like to ask the Premier today, in light of Mr.
Burns' statement, will he be asking his minister to call an immediate meeting
of the Public Accounts committee where the Auditor would be there and allow all
MLAs to be involved in this very important issue, and, also, allow that to be
an open process for the public of this province?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that as of Friday,
with the difficult choices that we face and the difficult challenge that we
face, that I might have had the co‑operation of all parties in this
Legislature to try and depoliticize the issue and take it into a basis of
seeking a solution.
The member knows full well that he has been invited to a
briefing with Mr. Burns at 2:30 today, as has the Leader of the Liberal
Party. Unlike City Council where
everyone is an individual, we operate in a party system, and I would think that
the Leader might take some responsibility to be the Leader of his party, to go
there and seek whatever information any of his members have that has not been
addressed so far.
If he has any questions whatsoever, the purpose of having
Mr. Burns and many of the other players there who have been involved in the
process is so that all of his questions might be answered. If some are not able to be answered because
they require the input of the Auditor, we can even take those questions down
and have the Auditor's response.
But if all he is interested in is having a political three‑ring
circus in which he can try and squeeze some more politics out of this issue,
Mr. Speaker, I say to him, that is not going to solve the problem, that is not
going to meet the challenge, and I am disappointed in his approach.
* (1350)
Winnipeg Jets
Federal Involvement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I have asked for an all‑party dealing
with this issue before. I have
participated in all‑party ways with other important challenges facing
this province. I reject totally the
Premier's statement, and I ask him to read his own comments. If I recall the Speech from the Throne in
1990 after Meech Lake, I think he said that the public is sick and tired of
people having closed‑door meetings behind walls, Mr. Speaker.
I think public involvement helps all three parties find a
solution. I do not believe that opening
the doors to the public hurts the process, Mr. Speaker, and there is perhaps
where the Premier and ourselves can disagree.
I think that would help, not hurt the process.
I have a further question to the Premier arising out of the
Burns report. Mr. Speaker, I have asked
the government before whether the federal government would be involved, because
the lion's share of the revenue, as the Premier has always indicated, goes to
the federal government. In the Burns
report, they clearly state that close to 60 percent of the revenue derived,
they would propose, from any facility and the hockey team remaining in our
community goes directly to the federal government.
The federal government has previously stated it is not
interested in being involved in the infrastructure program. Now I am not sure in terms of
statements. I would like to know what
involvement has the Premier had with the federal government on the Burns report
and how much that played in his announcement on Friday.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I cannot believe the hypocrisy of the Leader
of the Opposition. That very member,
when he was in cabinet, willingly met privately without any public involved in
his cabinet meetings. Every week and
every day, he has caucus meetings in which there is no member of the public
allowed to hear the things they discuss, Mr. Speaker.
That very member, as a committee member of the Meech Lake
task force report, met in private every time they decided, all parties, on the
ultimate conclusions that went into that report, all done in private. That is an absolute sham, for him to suggest
that he will not meet in private to discuss issues of importance, Mr.
Speaker. It is a political sham and he should
be ashamed.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government obviously gains considerable
revenues from the operation of a hockey club here. In fact, as I said, out of a $14‑million
revenue to three levels of government, at least half goes to the federal
government. So, yes, they ought to be a
player, and, yes, Mr. Axworthy will be meeting and discussing it with us later
today, and, obviously, there will be ongoing talks.
Bond Issue Costs
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): The Premier will know that there were lots of
discussions in arriving at the report on Meech Lake, and we did work together
in an all‑party way, but there were public hearings prior to Meech Lake,
and there were public hearings scheduled after Meech Lake, Mr. Speaker.
I think Manitobans liked the co‑operation around
Meech Lake and the attempt for co‑operation. I do not know why the Premier is so‑‑[interjection]
Well, I think the Premier is losing sight of some good recommendations.
Finally, I have a third question to the Premier dealing
with the Burns report tabled after Question Period on Friday.
There is a quote in the report dealing with the whole issue
of how much a bond issue would cost. We
understand that today at City Council, it was reported that it would be about
$7 million annually, cost to the taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, the problem is we do not know for how long
that would be. Burns says this is less
costly than the ongoing losses of a hockey team, but, of course, there is no
such thing as ongoing losses of a hockey team.
It is for three years. The bond
issue would be for at least 20 to 30 years.
Does the government have a financial breakdown of the
actual cost to the taxpayers of a bond issue?
It is not in the Burns report. It
is something, if we do not have from the Premier, we would like to obtain from
the Provincial Auditor, so that we can look at it in the overall context of
issues that we have before us.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, the way it works is this
way. If the bond issue is for $100
million and the interest rate is 7 percent, it is $7 million annually. If it is $110 million and it is 7 percent, it
is $7.7 million annually. If it is $200
million and it is 6.5 percent, it is $13 million annually.
That is the way it works.
I will send over a calculator to help him, so that he can figure that
out.
* (1355)
Winnipeg Jets
Player Costs
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Premier.
On Friday, when we were asking questions on the issue of
the Jets, we did not have the benefit of the Burns report. It was tabled at the end of Question
Period. Now that all parties and members
of the Legislature have had an opportunity to review it, my question for the
Premier is, at page 5 of that report, the Ogden report, which was commissioned
by the Burns committee, specifically states, and the committee, in fact,
endorses that statement: "it is our
opinion that resolution of the key issues being negotiated between the NHL and
the NHLPA (National Hockey League Players' Association), especially if there
will be a formula by which player costs are determined, be resolved before any
commitment is made to construct a new arena."
That issue, Mr. Speaker, probably more than any other, is
one which is outside of our control. No
matter who comes forward in the province of Manitoba with what amount of money,
that issue is out of our control and appears to be underlying all of this.
My question for the Premier: Now that he has had a chance to review this
report in its entirety, is there any initiative or have there been any discussions
thus far to get together with the other communities in the NHL currently, who
even if they are not where we are now, are certainly going to be, to make an
initiative, to sit down and get a firm commitment from the NHL, Mr. Bettman or
others, as to what they are going to do to make it even viable to have pro
hockey in the NHL in communities like Winnipeg?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, as I indicated on Friday, Mayor
Thompson has had a group of mayors who represent smaller cities that included
Mr. Duerr from Calgary, Ms. Reimer from Edmonton, the mayor of Quebec City and
the mayor of Ottawa and so on, because, quite evidently, this same problem
faces every one of these markets, and in addition to that, probably Hartford,
probably Pittsburgh and maybe even some other American franchises. Very clearly, it is an issue that, if not
resolved, would probably discount half a dozen or more of the current franchise‑holding
cities in the league from being able to exist viably in the NHL.
There has been a tremendous explosion, even in the past
three years, of salaries. When you make
a comparison, even today, the Winnipeg Jets' salary package, total salaries, is
still just over half of what the Stanley Cup winning New York Rangers' salaries
currently are, so you know that the upward pressure is immense. I believe there are some expectations that
they can double again within three years, so this is an issue that has to be
dealt with, or the viability will not work.
I understand that the mayor has an ongoing liaison for the
purpose of trying to have a joint effort.
They have met now a couple of times with Mr. Bettman, and he can only
give them assurances that the NHL is sympathetic, understands the problem and
is attempting to address it. He cannot
give any firm indication that the NHL will address it until negotiations take
place.
Winnipeg Arena
Public Support
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
second question is for the Premier again.
Having now reviewed the report in its entirety, the other
comment which I thought was very interesting in this report, at page 7, was
that there was a specific recognition that no commitment would be made by a
government of any kind or indeed the private sector until the public has
clearly demonstrated their willingness to support a new facility. That is a statement which, again, underlies
this entire debate.
I asked the Premier on Friday if he had any suggestions as
to how that initiative might be undertaken.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to take this out of the blue‑chip
committees and to take this out of the halls of the Legislature and City Hall
and go directly to the people of the community to somehow find what willingness
they have to have this team and a new facility and how much money they are
willing to put in it of their own free will.
My question for the Premier is, has he given that specific
comment any further consideration over these last few days, as we head into
this meeting later this afternoon, as to how that initiative might be
undertaken, because, again, it is an issue that underlies many others?
* (1400)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, there are a number of elements
to that. I believe there is a
requirement, obviously, for significant private‑sector risk capital
investment.
If you believe what the Burns report puts forward, and I
accept it as being a very reasonable estimate, they are suggesting that the
income for the hockey team's operations from its tickets and boxes and luxury
seats and so on would have to double its current level of income. That means all the tickets in the arena would
have to go up substantially. Even the lowest‑priced
tickets would probably have to increase at least 50 percent in order to meet
that kind of projection.
Unfortunately, I do not believe anybody out there who is
promoting this‑‑and there are certainly many in the sports media
with, I think, good intentions who are promoting this‑‑is saying
directly to the people who phone in, are you prepared to accept a 50 percent to
doubling of your tickets within the next very short while in order to make this
viable? I think that has to be put out
there.
In addition to that, if there is a willingness to buy
season tickets and to increase very substantially the amount of money that
everybody puts in who is a spectator and a fan, then in addition to that, there
would probably have to be a need for another public fundraising kind of
undertaking, such as was done when the WHA Jets were saved and were taken out
of private ownership and into community ownership. At that time, the total requirement was about
a million dollars between private and public sectors. Today, we are obviously talking about a
hundred times that and the magnitude of the challenge is much, much higher.
I think that if there is going to be any solution to this,
other than just straight government money, not only to pay for capital, but to
purchase the team and to cover operating losses, a solution which I have obviously
rejected, then I think there is much to be done, and there are many people
potentially who can get involved in that effort, and many of them obviously
have a strong interest in doing that.
So I think that is something that we will want to talk
about, and I look forward to the co‑operative participation which I know
the member opposite has been offering since last Friday, and I thank him for
that.
Major Tenant
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): My final question is
for the Premier.
One other statement I want to pick up on with the Premier
is, on page 9 under the optimum conditions portion of this report, No. 2, it is
clear that this committee found the construction of an arena was only viable if
they had one major tenant, and they see that as the hockey club which is going
to use 55 nights or so a season, and they conclude that without the team's
presence, there can be no economic rationale to proceed with planning and
construction, that is, of an arena.
That has never happened in this city or in this province,
that we have had the debate about the facility alone, because the arena and the
Jets have been inseparable since Mr. Shenkarow made that linkage, and it has
been reinforced and reinforced.
Is that a linkage which is strictly necessary, in the
Premier's mind? Mr. Speaker, we have
never had that analysis done, outside of the Jets, in those specific terms as
clearly as we have in this report. Is
that linkage necessary, in fact, before we turn to the issue of an arena, that
we settle the Jets' problem? Is that
clear in the Premier's mind?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am dating myself, but I
remember very excitedly going to the early games of the Winnipeg Warriors in
the brand new Winnipeg Arena back in the mid‑'50s. At that time, I do not think anybody would
have expected that arena would last forever.
Even despite many improvements that have been made, I think
it is arguable that that facility will become functionally obsolete somewhere
in the next 15 years. It might be able
to last with continued maintenance for another 15 years or so, but it is
starting to reach the end of its economic life.
Regardless of whether or not the Winnipeg Jets or any major tenant
remains in Winnipeg, we will probably be, as a community, looking for an
entertainment centre by the year 2010.
The difference is, without a major tenant that contributes
tremendous revenue to that facility for 55 event dates a year, the economics
really do not make sense in building a new facility. So, yes, the two are intertied, and, yes,
that whole argument ought to be part of the discussion, the debate and the
consideration that we enter into in making this decision.
Obviously, I hope that we all bear that in mind, and in
terms of the debate before the public, that that is part of the information
that is always on the table when we have that discussion.
Post‑Secondary Education
EPF Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, this week, the Minister of
Finance will be meeting with his federal counterparts to discuss, amongst many
things, the changes in funding from the federal government to educational
programs.
I wanted to ask the Minister of Finance, will he confirm
that on his agenda is a federal government proposal to accelerate the phasing
out of EPF post‑secondary funding, ending cash transfers by '96‑97,
and can he indicate whether he has prepared an impact study of this on Manitoba
finances?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will
confirm part of that, that, yes, the whole issue of all transfer payments are
on the agenda, a combination of EPF, equalization and CAP.
All of the transfer payments from the federal government to
the provincial governments are on the agenda, but in terms of the specific
suggestion that the member has made, information is coming in from the federal
government in terms of particular aspects under each item area, and, to date, I
have not seen the specific information she is referring to.
Skills Training
Loans/Vouchers
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): My supplementary is for the Minister of
Education.
I wanted to ask him whether in his discussions with his
federal counterparts today, whether he discussed a federal proposal to provide
vouchers or loans for skills training and for literacy to Manitobans, and has
he prepared an analysis of the impact of this on Manitobans and on Manitoba
institutions?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, elements of the issue brought forward by the member were discussed,
but certainly, we are in no position to react with reference to a Manitoba
analysis or the impact on Manitoba.
I mean, it is just a germ in the mind of the federal
government for the most part at this point in time, and, Mr. Speaker, it would
be too soon to suggest what the impact might be on Manitoba.
ACCESS Programs
Federal Funding
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I want to ask the Minister of Education,
finally, whether he discussed in his meetings today new student assistance
plans of the federal government, and could he tell us what position he took on
behalf of Manitobans for bursaries for disadvantaged students, for example, and
did he, in fact, suggest to the federal government that it was time that they
reinstated the money for ACCESS students in Manitoba?
* (1410)
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Well,
Mr. Speaker, the member does a disservice to people who are listening to this
debate in trying to portray the meeting that we had as one where the provincial
government was just asking the federal government for more money.
Mr. Speaker, the meeting that was held this morning was one
that was dealing with the whole social safety net reform. It did talk about one dimension of that
being, of course, the whole area of learning and training, but it had to fit
into the whole change or reform.
As my colleague, the Minister of Family Services (Mrs.
Mitchelson), who is taking our lead in this, would point out very clearly, the
federal government is just presenting a general approach and will be more
specific, I gather, once they decide, once the federal government decides,
which are the better of the options to follow.
Social Safety Net Reform
Federal Government Strategy
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, since October 1993, the federal
government has been talking about changes to social programs. Most of the discussion has been very general
in terms of discussion papers and consultations.
Now that the Minister of Family Services has met with the
federal Minister of Human Resources today, I am wondering if we know more
specifics, since the only specific we have had so far is the cutting of 40,000
people from unemployment insurance and putting them on provincial social
assistance, which is going to cost the Province of Manitoba $2 million a year.
Can the minister now tell us if she knows more of the
details of the federal government's plans for changes to social policy?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question.
Indeed, we did meet with the federal government, with Mr.
Axworthy, this morning and still do not have a great sense of any clarity
around the options that are going to be presented in a discussion paper which
will be released some time later this year for public input.
Mr. Speaker, we did discuss the issues that Family
Services' ministers or social services' ministers across the country made very
clear to Mr. Axworthy through a communique of a meeting a couple of weeks ago
that said we wanted to be full and equal partners in the process, and rather
than just bilateral meetings province by province, that we should have a
multilateral meeting. Mr. Axworthy did
agree to that.
He is right now travelling across the country meeting with
ministers that might be impacted, Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Education
and Training and ministers of social services right across the country. Those meetings will be finished later on this
week. After that is finished, he has
committed to a multilateral process, where provinces and the federal government
can come together to discuss the issues.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that the
provincial government is finally being consulted.
Manitoba Position
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I would like to ask the minister if she has
put forward her position, her government's position on what the Manitoba
priorities are. If so, could she tell
the House what her government's priorities are in terms of social policy
changes?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, first and foremost, I think what we want to see is a reduction of
overlap and duplication from the federal and provincial levels. If, in fact, we have too much bureaucracy
delivering programs and those programs can be delivered more efficiently and
more effectively by a streamlining of services, we are very much supportive of
that.
We also indicated, have in the past and will continue to
indicate that a pure offload is not in the best interests of anyone. What I mean by definition of offload is to
take the dollars that presently exist and cut them from old programs. We have said we want innovative, new,
creative approaches that put our social safety programs into a more active,
self‑reliant process, rather than a passive dependent process.
We know that some of our welfare programs create welfare as
a career option. That is not what we
want.
Employment Creation Strategy
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Minister of
Family Services shares our concern about the federal government offloading
expenses to the Province of Manitoba.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services if her
government is strongly proposing to the federal government that there be a job
creation component and that the thousands of people on provincial social
assistance and city assistance be put into training and retraining programs and
that there be firm job creation goals, so that at the end of the day, we know
more people are working.
It is not good enough to just talk about offloading. What are the government's goals?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, it is clear that this government, our government, wants to see people
moved into the workforce, become more independent, more self‑reliant than
dependent on a system that we have in place.
We are working very actively in order to promote that. We announced just two weeks ago the
enhancement of a City of Winnipeg initiative that will employ over this next
year 400 more welfare recipients as a result of putting those people into
community service positions.
We are in the process of developing pilot projects with the
federal government that will address some of the issues around single parents
and their dependency on a welfare system and trying to have them become more
independent, more self‑reliant.
Those programs will be announced in the near future.
Department of Health
Untendered Contracts
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Health, responding
to a question taken as notice.
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the other day the honourable
member for Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) asked about Dr. Lerner and his agreement
with the government. That agreement runs
from April 1 of '94 to March 3 of '95.
The amount is equivalent to the collective bargaining agreement salary
of an emergency physician with just four years of work experience. Dr. Lerner is an associate professor of
emergency and family medicine with 17 years of experience.
Mr. Speaker, the honourable member also asked about Ernst
& Young. During 1992‑93, Ernst
& Young undertook an assessment of the hospital submission process in
financial management and control functions.
During that study, some departmental training requirements and
involvement in sessions on funding policy development were identified.
Manitoba Health awarded this project to Ernst & Young
as a result of the extensive work already provided to the department. Their experience, knowledge and national
exposure to new and different funding processes and models used in Ontario, the
Maritimes, Saskatchewan and Alberta in developing such training sessions was
the reason for their selection.
Federal Agricultural Programs
Funding
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about
the latest reports that the federal Departments of Agriculture and Transport
will have their budgets cut by 40 percent.
This not only seems to confirm federal Minister Young's recent musings
that transportation subsidies will be eliminated, but worse, that farm income
support programs will be slashed with a devastating impact on farmers. What makes this even more bizarre is that
these reports come at the same time that consultations are underway about what
type of income support program will replace GRIP and what will happen with the
method of payment of the Crow benefit.
My question for the Minister of Agriculture: Has he any assessment as to the impact that
such drastic cuts would have on agriculture producers in Manitoba and on the
agri‑food industry in western Canada?
Has the Minister of Agriculture contacted his federal counterpart to
indicate in the strongest possible terms Manitoba's opposition to these cuts?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, while
we speak, my federal counterpart, the Honourable Mr. Goodale, is in Chicago on
behalf of Canadian farmers and Manitoba farmers, dealing with the ongoing very
serious negotiations with the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States,
Mr. Espy. So he is not available to me.
All members are aware that I am expecting all Ministers of
Agriculture from across the country, as well as the federal minister, in
Winnipeg next week, where we will have the appropriate occasion to discuss
these kinds of questions.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, when
he contacts the federal minister at the meetings next week, or before,
hopefully, will he ask him to clearly state the federal position on these
issues, exactly what they are planning to do with GRIP and with the Crow
benefit, because there is absolute confusion out there now, and express the
view that Manitoba will not tolerate a charade of consultations on issues that
the federal government has already decided upon?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear
that, of course, we will go into these negotiations with the expectation that
Canada, which traditionally has had the major role in these kinds of safety net
and support programs, continues to play that role. At what level? That, quite frankly, is the issue that faces
all the Treasuries of this country, provincial and federal.
But, Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this moment. That is why the thrust of this government,
the thrust of my ministry, is why we need hog production, why we need Ayerst
and PMU production, why we need potato production, why we need the widest
possible diversified agriculture for our primary producers, so that we are less
dependent on the Treasuries of Ottawa and on our own for the continued
maintenance of farm families.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, while this government is talking
about diversification, they are cutting research funding that takes place‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that
eliminating support for western Canadian agriculture undermines our position on
grain exports to the U.S., I want to ask the minister, since he referred to the
meeting that has taken place with Agriculture ministers, has the minister
consulted with his western counterparts prior to the agriculture ministers'
meeting to ensure that we have a co‑ordinated position on these important
issues facing agriculture in western Canada prior to the meeting?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. I have personally visited with ministers
Walter Paszkowski from Alberta and Darrel Cunningham in Regina.
This very week, one of my senior officials, an assistant
deputy minister, is meeting in Regina again to kind of put forward or at least
to understand a western regional position, if you like, because there are some
issues, the Western Grain Transportation program being one of them, that are
unique to western Canada. This is being
done.
* (1420)
Policing Services
Private Security Patrols
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, the province has made a number
of law enforcement programs a priority.
As a result of competing priorities and creating expectations for police
service, several community and business groups in Winnipeg have in recent weeks
turned to private security patrols.
As the chief law enforcement officer in Manitoba, would the
Acting Justice minister say what he will do to ensure there is not a two‑tier
level of security for the city of Winnipeg, one level for those who can afford
extra security and another for the rest of the citizens of Winnipeg?
Hon. James McCrae
(Acting Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I will bring this question to
the attention of the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey).
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Committee Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Law Amendments for the Tuesday morning session be amended as follows: the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for
the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson); the member for Springfield (Mr.
Findlay) for the member for LaVerendrye (Mr. Sveinson); and the member for
Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose).
I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments‑‑this
is for Tuesday evening‑‑be amended as follows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh) for
the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the
member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst); and the member for LaVerendrye (Mr.
Sveinson) for the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay).
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render),
that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development‑‑this
is for the Tuesday morning session‑‑be amended as follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau)
for the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer); the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr.
McAlpine) for the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner); the member for Steinbach
(Mr. Driedger) for the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik); the member for
Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose); and the
member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) for the member for LaVerendrye (Mr.
Sveinson).
I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render),
that the composition of the Standing Committee on Private Bills be amended as
follows: the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) for the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard).
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): I wonder if you
would see if there is leave of the House to adjust the Estimates schedule for
tomorrow, following the Estimates of the Legislative Assembly to consider the
Estimates of the Community Support Programs.
It was inadvertently missed, Mr. Speaker, when we dealt with this matter
on Friday.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave for tomorrow? [agreed]
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the
House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted
to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee
to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable
member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose) in the Chair for the Other
Appropriations, Employee Benefits and Other Payments, and Canada‑Manitoba
Enabling Vote; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the
Chair for the Department of Labour.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
Urban Economic Development Initiatives
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Will the Committee
of Supply please come to order. This
section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of Urban
Economic Development Initiatives. Does
the honourable Minister of Finance have an opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): No, I do not. Well, maybe, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I
believe it is self‑explanatory what this allocation is. It is the urban equivalent of 25 percent of
VLT income estimated to be generated in the city of Winnipeg, similar to what
has been set aside for the last two to three years in rural Manitoba for
economic development through the REDI program and so on.
* (1430)
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for
the first opposition party have an opening statement?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, of course, 25
percent is not really what has been set aside for all of rural Manitoba. The fact of the matter is that the amount of
money that is going to rural Manitoba falls far short of that, certainly in
terms of any money that is available for the municipalities or the community
councils to spend in northern Manitoba.
But I would like to maybe just ask some more specific
questions of the minister. Perhaps the
minister can provide some more detail about, I guess, the sharing of power when
it comes to the expenditure of this money.
Is this simply part of the block grant that forms part of the grant to
the City of Winnipeg? How are the
decisions made with respect to the allocation of this 25 percent?
Mr. Stefanson: I will come back to that.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for
the second opposition party have an opening statement?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. Actually it was interesting the minister
would make reference to the 25 percent, being that from the VLT revenues, in
terms of the urban economic development for the City of Winnipeg. I recall the discussions and the debates that
occurred when the VLT machines were implemented in rural Manitoba and in the
city of Winnipeg. I believe it was two
years ago when the City of Winnipeg had actually implemented‑‑in
implementing their own budget, they had anticipated on receiving more than the
25 percent because they believed that the VLT machines were going to be taking
a lot out of the communities, so I guess what we will enter into is a good,
healthy discussion in terms of the types of dollars that are actually coming
out, going towards the program so that we can get a better idea in terms of the
pros and the cons of the Urban Economic Development fund that is receiving its
money from the VLT machines.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I thank the critic
from the second opposition party for his statement. Does the minister wish to introduce his
staff?
Mr. Stefanson: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, seated
beside me is the Deputy Minister of Finance, Mr. Charles Curtis. Across from him is Mr. Don Leitch, who is the
Clerk of the Executive Council, and also Mr. Bruce Birdsell, who is the
secretary to the infrastructure committee.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I refer you to page
152 in the book: 8. Urban Economic
Development Initiatives $10,000,000.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think it is important
to outline how the urban VLT dollars are being allocated, and 10 percent is
being allocated on an unconditional basis directly to the City of Winnipeg as
funding, so that is actually included in the Urban Affairs budget, goes
straight to them on an unconditional basis.
The City of Winnipeg can utilize what in this budget is $4 million as
they see fit, and I am sure that was discussed under the Urban Affairs agenda.
This is the 25 percent that goes towards economic
development in Winnipeg. To answer the
question raised by the member for Flin Flon, it is a decision ultimately made
by the provincial government on various projects, in consultation with the City
of Winnipeg, but not unlike the Rural Economic Development allocation, the
ultimate decision is made by the provincial government in terms of what
projects to support and/or not support.
So, on various items, we will have discussions, consultation with City
of Winnipeg, and might end up having them directly with individual
organizations or whatever, but, ultimately, the decision on this $10 million is
made by us as a provincial government.
So the City of Winnipeg gets the 10 percent directly on an unconditional
basis.
Now I know this year the City of Winnipeg built into their
budget some expectation out of this pool of resources. I believe the amount they built into their
budget was $5 million, that they were expecting to get out of this funding
source, to assist organizations like the Convention Centre, Tourism Winnipeg,
Winnipeg 2000. We, as I indicated in the
budget, are going to be assisting those organizations, but not to the level
that the city was requesting. Hopefully,
that is clear.
Mr. Storie: Just so we are clear, the 10 percent that was
unconditional formed part of the capital grant to the City of Winnipeg.
An Honourable Member: Operating grant.
Mr. Storie: Operating grant to the City of Winnipeg. Was that new money? I mean, all you are doing is saying that it
is sourced out of Lotteries now, that in fact there was no increase.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not
speaking for Urban Affairs, but, yes, that was incremental. That was new money outside of how we dealt
with their traditional operating grant which, I believe, received a 2.5 percent
reduction on their operating grant, but the 10 percent allocation was, one
could use the expression, new money. It
was outside of all of the other funding sources that the City of Winnipeg gets
from the province‑‑[interjection]
No, but just on that point, the reduction overall on the
operating was a few hundred thousand dollars because the operating grant, I
believe, is about $20 million, so a 2.5 percent reduction was about $500,000, I
believe. I stand corrected in terms of
the exact amount, but that is the vicinity; whereas they were provided with an
additional $4 million over and above.
So, overall on the operating side, the city received a significant
overall increase, I believe, of approximately 5 percent in funding because of
its being the first year that they were getting the unconditional operating
grant under the urban VLTs. So they did
get a significant increase this year.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, then we move
to the 25 percent, and from the minister's explanation, it is clear that the
province will set the priorities for expending these funds. I guess my question is: What does the list include? Have the priorities been set for this
year? Do they include existing or
proposed infrastructure agreements separate from the next section that we are
going to discuss?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
correct. This really has nothing to do
with the infrastructure agreement, which we will get to in a minute, which is
entirely separate, but to date we have allocated about $9 million out of the
$10 million.
Just over $1.5 million is going to fund a percentage of the
operating costs of the Winnipeg Convention Centre. It equates to slightly less than 50 percent
of the operating requirements because when we looked at their budget, they had
some items in there that we felt did not warrant support. They had a deficit carry forward, and they
had some financing of some capital projects that we felt should not be funded
from this sourcing.
So it does include just over $1.5 million as a contribution
to the Winnipeg Convention Centre. It
includes $720,000 as a contribution towards Winnipeg 2000, which is roughly 50
percent of their operating requirements from government. It includes $570,000 for Tourism Winnipeg,
again which is roughly 50 percent of their operating requirements. It includes $995,000 as a contribution to the
Winnipeg Green Team program, and it includes $5.2 million as the province's
share of the estimated funding requirements for the Winnipeg Jets. Those all total approximately $9 million.
Mr. Storie: Well, I guess that is the problem with the
way the minister and his government are doing their accounting, that this is
under a heading Urban Economic Development Initiatives, and it is, in part,
paying for funding that the province had previously funded and decided not
to. It is funding, I guess, make‑work
projects, The Green Team Winnipeg; it is funding the Winnipeg Jets losses.
I guess the real question is: Is this simply a slush fund that the province
is using for solving the day‑to‑day problems it is creating itself?
Where is the imagination here? Where is the sense of direction for the city
or the province in the expenditure here of $10 million?
Mr. Stefanson: I think, if the member will look at the items
being supported, he will agree that they make a very significant contribution
to the economic well‑being of Winnipeg.
I am more than prepared to get him background information on the
Winnipeg Convention Centre, the many millions of dollars that it generates for
the economy of Winnipeg, obviously the work being done by Winnipeg 2000 and
Tourism Winnipeg, in terms of promoting Winnipeg and what Winnipeg has to
offer.
We have discussed at length, in Public Accounts and in the
Chamber, the economic contribution that the Winnipeg Jets make primarily to
Winnipeg, recognizing that all of these that I mentioned have other impacts on
the rest of Manitoba, but most significantly on the city of Winnipeg.
The Winnipeg Green Team initiative, employing some 350
young people over the summer months, again, is a new initiative here in
Winnipeg. When we were looking at the
allocation, I know the City of Winnipeg was most hopeful that we would support
the programs like the Convention Centre and Winnipeg 2000 and Tourism Winnipeg,
that there was not a need to be out there looking for new initiatives or new
programs or new organizations. They have
the basic infrastructure in place, and, rather than ignoring their requirements‑‑they
specifically asked us to support them with the needs to sustain what they feel
are very significant facilities or organizations promoting economic development
in Winnipeg. Those were very
specifically done in consultation and discussion with the City of Winnipeg.
* (1440)
We have, as the member for Flin Flon knows, other economic
development programs: manufacturing,
industrial opportunity programs and a series of other kinds of programs that
can meet other economic needs in Winnipeg or throughout Manitoba. But these organizations and facilities
generate significant economic activity for Winnipeg.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, is it the
intention of the government or is it now assumed that, for example, the ongoing
losses at the Winnipeg Convention Centre are going to be covered under this
particular category? Is this lottery
funding now going to cover in perpetuity the loss of the Convention
Centre? Is that the aim?
Are the ongoing operations of Winnipeg 2000 or Tourism
Winnipeg going to be funded from lottery sources? Is that the intention of the government?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, at this
particular point in time, there is no long‑term agreement in place for
the funding of any of these. These
decisions were made around this particular budget here. Like many items in the budget, these will
have to stand the test of scrutiny each and every budget year, whether or not
they warrant the support and whether or not the government feels they should be
continuing to support them.
There is no doubt they are priorities of the City of
Winnipeg, and they represent‑‑as I say, I will certainly forward
the information on the Convention Centre to both members, because if they have
not had a chance to look at it in the past, they will be reasonably impressed
with the significant economic activity and the significant engine that a
facility like the Convention Centre is here in Winnipeg.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am familiar
with the operation, other than the Winnipeg 2000 group, which I think, although
relatively new, there are mixed views on the success of Winnipeg 2000. There is no doubt about the importance of the
Convention Centre.
The point I am making here is that for the first time the
government has decided to use lottery funds, basically to fund ongoing losses
of various enterprises, including the Jets.
I guess there are a lot of people in rural Manitoba and perhaps the
people in Brandon who would say, well, we want the province to allocate funds
in perpetuity for losses of the Keystone Centre.
There are other centres, Selo Ukraina in Dauphin, numerous
other publicly owned facilities that would love to have their operations covered
out of lottery funds, which obviously to this point have not had any success.
Just a question to the minister: Is there any intention on the part of the
government to allocate 25 percent of the funding that is raised by VLTs in
rural Manitoba to rural economic development?
Has that commitment been made, for example, to the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities or to the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities that have
requested this similar treatment?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all,
the member for Flin Flon knows that the ongoing losses of the Jets do not go on
for perpetuity. As I have indicated, the
Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg are amongst the highest priorities
of the City of Winnipeg when they look at economic development
opportunities. We also had delegations
from individuals representing some of those organizations. We had delegations from other interested
organizations that are impacted by certainly the Winnipeg Convention Centre,
and we were being told that these are very important economic entities here in
Winnipeg, and, on that basis, feel they warrant the support from this
allocation of money, which is, as we know, from the urban VLTs to go towards
economic development.
Rural Manitoba has a series of programs, the Rural Economic
Development Initiative and other programs, and they would deal with each
request on an individual basis. If
something comes forth that makes sense for rural Manitoba, then that will be a
determination of government and the minister responsible and so on whether or
not it should be supported, but some of these items represent the highest
priority of the City of Winnipeg. In
fact, they went so far as to indicate, as I said in my opening remarks, that
they were including estimated and hopeful recoveries of some contribution
towards these organizations from this very source.
Mr. Storie: My second question which the minister did not
answer was relative to the treatment of rural Manitoba and VLT revenues. The Union of Manitoba Municipalities and MAUM
and numerous councillors and mayors across the province have asked the
provincial government to set aside at least 25 percent of VLT revenue for rural
economic development. The minister may
attempt to fool himself that somehow that that is being done through programs
like REDI. The fact of the matter is
that for a number of years now there have been significant problems in that
program and the amount of money that is actually being transferred to
municipalities unconditionally is substantially less than what apparently has
been offered to the City of Winnipeg.
It appears that the minister's explanation is right, or if
I have interpreted it right, that of 35 percent of VLT revenue 10 percent is
given unconditionally, and then 25 percent set aside for specific urban
economic initiatives. But 35 percent of
the revenue from VLTs is now going to the City of Winnipeg. The question is: When are people in rural Manitoba going to
get the same kind of deal?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that
interpretation is absolutely incorrect.
I have outlined the organizations that are the beneficiaries of the
support under the urban 25 percent and they are not going‑‑I mean,
it is not directly to the City of Winnipeg.
It ends up being to these individual organizations, which, after
discussions with the City of Winnipeg, were recognized as being areas of high
priority. Unlike some previous governments,
just because there is a pool of resources, we do not go out looking for‑‑always
looking for new and potentially frivolous ways to spend it. We have existing organizations that are in
place that serve an economic need in the city of Winnipeg, that are recognized
as priorities of the City of Winnipeg.
We felt they warranted support, and we are doing that from this funding
source.
Mr. Storie: Let us just back up to the first question
that was asked. The minister suggested
that 10 percent of VLT revenue was going to Winnipeg, that the $4 million was
unconditional. That is 10 percent in
addition to the 25 percent that shows up under Urban Economic Development
Initiatives. Is that correct?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is
correct and exactly the same percentages with the same kind of allocation you
will find under rural development, the 10 percent going unconditionally to
municipalities in rural Manitoba and 25 percent going for rural economic
development, exactly the same.
Coincidentally, we will see the exact same dollar amounts because the
estimates for both rural Manitoba and Winnipeg overall were $40 million. So not only will you see the same percentage
allocation, you will see the same dollar allocation.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I certainly do
not see those numbers. The amount of
money that is provided to municipalities is substantially less than 10 percent
of the total revenue that rural VLTs have been raising. The minister may want to confirm those
numbers, but there is certainly no question that the projects‑‑and
if the minister is suggesting that the City of Winnipeg at least had some input
into the projects that were funded out of the 25 percent VLT revenue‑‑but
that certainly has not been the case in rural Manitoba. That has been one of the complaints, that in
fact the decisions are made by REDI, by ministerial directive, by Green Team
funding out of the Department of Rural Development, and a number of other
programs.
There has been virtually no consultation, and a sense that
the money that is coming out of the communities, that is being sucked out of
the communities is being‑‑I was going to say wasted but maybe that
is not the correct term, but certainly no sense that it is going towards the
priorities that are community based or even regionally based.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, that is
absolutely incorrect, and I am not here to debate the Estimates of Rural
Development, although I would love to, but by being on Treasury Board, I see
many of the projects that are approved, and I can assure the member for Flin
Flon that all kinds of projects have input directly from municipalities
throughout rural Manitoba. If he cares
to look on page 138 of his Estimates book he will see Unconditional Grants ‑
Rural Community Development $4 million, which is the item that I referred to
earlier, and he will see the rest of the allocations going into various
economic development initiatives, but my understanding is Rural Development has
been dealt with, and I thought we were here to deal with the Urban Economic
Development Initiatives.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister‑‑I
am not sure where they get the numbers from.
I simply know that in communities like Leaf Rapids or Snow Lake, they
are getting unconditional grants in the neighbourhood of $14,000, which does
not allow them to do anything, in essence.
Although the communities are losing $150,000, $200,000 a year and more,
the percentage of money that is coming back to the communities is far less than
25 percent. It does not appear to them
and it does not appear to me that the unconditional amount that is being
returned is anywhere close to 10 percent.
So the minister may feel that that is the case, but there is a broad
feeling in rural Manitoba and in the communities that I represent that that is
not the case.
* (1450)
Perhaps that is not sufficient, and certainly it is not
anywhere near the return that the communities were led to expect would be a
result of the introduction of VLTs. They
were told, unconditionally, that all of the money that was raised from VLTs
would be returned to Rural Economic Development, not 10 percent unconditionally
and a bunch of others lumped into government programs and so forth. So I am not sure that the minister has
satisfied me yet that there is any real plan in terms of Urban Economic
Development Initiatives coming from what is windfall revenue for the
government.
There is no sense that the money they are putting in place
is going to have any long‑term impact.
Certainly if they are going to fund losses, if they are going to fund
The Green Team and if they are going to fund the losses of the Winnipeg Jets, I
think many people would argue that is short‑term, shortsighted investment,
and probably if there is a way of frittering away $100 million from VLT
revenue, this is the best way the government could possibly conceive of doing
it. So maybe it is time to rethink, I
guess, the approach that has been taken.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as I have
already pointed out, the allocation under Rural Development on page 138, and, I
believe, the $4 million unconditional is done, I believe, on a per capita
basis, so it will vary by community to community, obviously, how much they
receive. The remaining $10 million that
totals the $14 million at the top of page 138 is basically done on the basis of
projects that come forward from communities, from organizations, from municipalities,
from whatever entity that feels they have an economic development project
worthy of support. I guess we will agree
to disagree, because the feedback I get has been overall very positive towards
programs like the Rural Economic Development Initiative, towards the Grow Bonds
Program and others in rural Manitoba that have benefited many communities and
generated hundreds and thousands of jobs in rural Manitoba.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have a
number of questions on this particular area.
I think the area that I would want to start off‑‑I think we
have to look at the REDI program, and I will try to demonstrate why.
When the VLTs were first brought in, there was a high
expectation that in fact all the revenues coming out of the VLTs would be
returned back into the communities. As a
result of the dollars that were coming into government through the VLT
machines, it was decided that they no longer wanted to have that money going
into the communities, that money being returned in the communities. But, when it did make the decision in rural
Manitoba, it decided what it would do is send the money back through a program,
with REDI, the Rural Economic Development Initiative.
Is that not a board or are there appointments to that
particular organization?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, again, I
assumed both members had an opportunity to be at Rural Development to ask any
questions about programs under their jurisdiction.
Having said that, I know that the Grow Bonds Program has a
board. I do not believe REDI does, but I
would have to get information and confirm.
I know the Grow Bonds Program does have a board of citizens from
throughout the province that reviews and makes recommendation on individual
Grow Bonds applications and programs. I
think the REDI program is dealt with administratively and works its way through
ultimately to the minister for recommendations on through Treasury Board and
cabinet. But I will confirm whether or
not REDI has a board or not.
At the same time that the member talks about the wants and
desires of rural Manitobans, rural Manitobans have also told us, loud and
clear, to get the deficit under control and ultimately eliminate it here in
Manitoba, and that is what we are on our way to doing.
Mr. Lamoureux: The reason why I asked, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, is that for some reason I was under the impression that under the
REDI program there was some broader‑based decision‑making group, if
you like, to establish priorities in terms of rural economic development
projects.
I guess I would ask the minister, what is out there? How does the minister base his decisions on
who is going to be getting what of this $10 million or this 25 percent share?
If it is just government or the minister through meeting with
one or two different organizations that make application to the Department of
Finance, I think that there are potentially more problems that could be
had. We constantly hear of slush funds
of sorts.
No one would question in terms of the economic benefits of
organizations or capital investments that need to be made, such as the
Convention Centre, but if we are talking about urban economic development and
we are talking about these new dollars that are coming into place‑‑if
we did not have the VLTs introduced in the city of Winnipeg, does this mean
that the Convention Centre would not have received provincial dollars?
What is actually in place to ensure that these dollars are,
in fact, being used for what government claims that they are being used for,
that these are, in fact, new projects that money would not have been allocated
out to?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all,
on the REDI and the Grow Bonds process, as I say, I think the Grow Bonds have a
board; I do not believe REDI does. But,
under both of those, the recommendations ultimately make their way through the
system through to the minister and then are part of recommendations of Treasury
Board and cabinet for ultimate approval.
So, ultimately, the government still makes the final decision. On the REDI, I know there is an application
process in place that has certain criteria built around it. Obviously, staff of Rural Development are in
rural Manitoba dealing with individual municipalities, organizations, and so
on, in terms of projects that meet their needs.
This is the first year of the 25 percent allocation to the
City of Winnipeg, and the member asks the question about whether or not we
would support the Winnipeg Convention Centre, Winnipeg 2000, Tourism Winnipeg. If these funds were not available, the answer
might be that we might not.
The other part of it is that if we were not able to support
them through this, the City of Winnipeg may not be supporting them, and we
might not have a Convention Centre, which was the second built in all of Canada
and does generate, if the member has not seen, significant activity. We just had the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities having their national convention here a week or two ago. It is a series of activities that take place
there.
So this has become very important at this particular stage
of that facility, along with these other organizations that I say, the City of
Winnipeg says, most major urban centres in Canada have an economic development
organization. Most have a major tourism
organization. They do play a significant
role for the economic well‑being of Winnipeg, and they are recognized as
amongst the highest priorities for the City of Winnipeg in terms of our
providing support out of this resource.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess,
ultimately, my fear would be that we are playing the shell game here, much like
when we built the casino. A lot of
people opposed the casino, but you say that the monies are going towards health
care. So people felt, oh, gee, it is
kind of warm and fuzzy inside, saying that it is going to a good cause, so that
might limit debate to a certain degree.
Well, who is going to oppose urban economic
development? So, to take VLT revenues to
urban economic development, again, it is one way of possibly sidestepping an
issue, the moral issue of gambling, if you like, in the sense that many people
will look at it and say, well, this could end up with jobs, and jobs are a
positive thing and that is what we want.
Manitobans continuously tell us that that is, in fact, their No. 1
priority.
* (1500)
I think that if we compared the two programs, it is 25 per
cent, and the number of applications, for example, if the minister had at his
finger tips, the number of applications that were received in under the REDI
program, and then compare that to the number of applications or the number of
identities that are out there that have made application for this particular
program‑‑I do not have the facts, and this is 100 percent speculative. I am just guessing at this. My best guess is that, under the REDI
program, you have likely received tenfold in terms of the numbers of interests
in different projects, different rural economic projects, whereas in the City
of Winnipeg we have seen, under the last one, five recipients of this
particular program.
If we had an application process and individual Manitobans
or companies or unions aware of the fact that we have this urban economic
initiative that is available, it is coming out of VLT revenues, and if you have
got a good idea, bring it to us.
You know, on the surface, this looks more like grants that
are going to be issued had we had the VLTs or not, because no one would call
into question the value of having the Convention Centre and doing the necessary
capital expenditures in order to bring it up or better compare it to be able to
compete in the '90s. I would like to
think that whatever government, of whatever political stripe, would recognize
that importance and allocate out the necessary dollars in order to do that.
I would ask the minister specifically: Is the department looking at having some form
of an application process which opens up this particular program, or does the
minister feel that this is the best way of dealing with this particular
program?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, no, we are not
at this time looking at expanding it into a broader application kind of a
form. We have various numbers of sources
for financial support within different government programs. Without listing them all, there is the
Manufacturing Industrial Opportunities Program.
There is the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative. There is now the Crocus Fund in
Manitoba. There is the Vision Capital
Fund. There is the Manufacturing
Adaptation Program. There is the small
business assistance program. There are a
series of programs out there that can help individuals or businesses depending
on what niche it is they are pursuing or what the nature of their business is.
This also provides a vehicle to support economic
development initiatives, but in terms of looking at meeting the needs of
individual businesses, we did not see the need for another program as such
application process because there are these various programs that can assist
businesses to either expand or relocate here in Manitoba, as well as other
things we have done through the taxation system like our Manufacturing
Investment Credit, like our Research and Development Tax Credit. So there are a series of initiatives that are
beneficial to businesses of all sizes.
This one is meant to capture some other initiatives. We have outlined the ones so far, and I am
sure there will be some other initiatives that the member will find projects
both that he can support and that he will find exciting for Winnipeg. He has already indicated that he recognizes
the significant economic activity that Winnipeg Convention Centre provides here
in our city, and these were done as a result of discussion with the City of
Winnipeg in terms of meeting what they viewed as some of their greatest
economic needs here in the city.
I should point out that on page 152, under Urban Economic
Development Initiatives, it says:
"Provides funding for Government directed economic development
initiatives within the City of Winnipeg."
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, getting back
to the shell game, if you like, the Department of Tourism, I am sure, and
again, the minister likely knows more than I on this particular issue, Tourism
Winnipeg would have received funds from Department of Tourism, or is this the
first time that they would have received grant dollars?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, first of all,
there is no shell game being played, and, to the best of my knowledge, it is
the first time that they would be receiving support for operations. We might have done some joint initiative with
them under the tourism agreement, some joint marketing or promotion or something
like that on a project basis, but in terms of meeting the needs of their
operation, this is the first time, to the best of my knowledge, that they are
receiving direct operational support to meet their ongoing, day‑to‑day
needs of their organization.
Mr. Lamoureux: So, for Tourism Winnipeg, that is operational
monies. With Winnipeg 2000, I would ask
if that is, in fact, also operational money.
If the answer to both of those is yes, I would assume that they are
going to have operational costs for fiscal years '94 and '95. Is the government going to be considering
incorporating these requests in on an annual basis into future budgets?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we spoke
specifically about Tourism Winnipeg, and, as I say, I would stand to be
corrected in a very slight way, but on an ongoing basis I know there has been
no operational. There might have been a
start‑up support or something.
Similarly, with Winnipeg 2000, there has been support on occasion, but,
again, not on an ongoing basis. When I
refer to operational, obviously I am referring to a combination of their staff,
their infrastructure, their marketing programs, some of their publications, all
of the things that they are doing to promote economic development here in
Winnipeg.
So that is the nature of comparing the past to where we are
today. As I indicated to the member for
Flin Flon, allocations under this pool of dollars will be made each year during
budget time as we do with $5.3 billion or $5.4 billion every year, and we will
be doing the same in this area in terms of whether or not there is a need to
continue to support these organizations in the future.
I cannot today predict what their operational requirements
will necessarily be, depending‑‑I mean the Convention Centre
obviously can swing fairly significantly depending on the number of conventions
it gets, events and those kinds of things.
So the amount has the potential to vary fairly significantly from year
to year, as, I believe, do the other two organizations depending on what other
funding sources from the private sector, other initiatives, that they can come
up with to work towards being more self‑sustaining.
Mr. Lamoureux: Can the minister give some sort of indication
in terms of The Green Team, the Winnipeg Green Team? I know that there was a new service that did
go out explaining that. If the minister
can maybe just expand on or comment on that particular program?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will get all
of the details that were handed out when the announcement was made several
weeks ago, but it is an initiative to employ young people, I believe, ages 16
to 24 here in Winnipeg working on a series of community initiatives. Different nonprofit organizations can apply
for funding support for staffing. When I
say organizations‑‑like community centres‑‑can apply to
The Green Team for, I believe, up to five positions, again, I am just giving
the general parameters; I stand to be corrected. So they can get the financial support
provided for that staffing, I think, to $8 and about 30 cents an hour, and they
can also get a small contribution towards the project itself, I think of up to
$5,000 per project, if they need some supplies for these young people to either
do maintenance or painting or whatever.
So that is probably a good example, community clubs. It also can be used by nonprofit
organizations and other organizations of that type to do enhancements to
facilities and so on, and meet the needs that they might have over the summer
months and obviously employ, I believe the estimate is, about 350 young
people. I can certainly get the details,
the project announcement application information for both members.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess,
finally, I just wanted to reiterate a point and would possibly even appreciate
some form of information, knowing that we are not in Rural Development. I would like very much to get something from
the REDI program in terms of that application process, because I do believe
that it allows for more local community input by having a criterion that is
established so that if a local community has an idea that they believe would be
good for urban economic development, there is a process that can be
followed. Personally, I would not mind
to be able to compare the two because at one point the member for Flin Flon
made reference in terms of a question of equitability between distribution of
these dollars both to rural and the city of Winnipeg, also in terms of the
mechanisms that we use to ensure that they are getting the 25 percent, which is
a significant percentage, and also that it is 15 or 10 percent that the City of
Winnipeg would get‑‑is it 15?
An Honourable Member: Unconditional?
Mr. Storie: Unconditional. Is it 10 percent? Yes, but if the minister would take it upon
himself to some time over the summer get me that information I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, I
will. I just want to point out that, as
I think the member knows, there are over 200 municipal organizations throughout
rural Manitoba, and we have had extensive discussions, consultations with them
through parent organizations like Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Manitoba
Association of Urban Municipalities, through rural economic forums that we have
held throughout various parts of the province and through the minister
responsible attending the regional meetings, participating in a whole range of
forums with them to get feedback on all of the things, how well they are
working and what improvements can be made in terms of how we deliver these
programs. But, yes, in terms of program
process, the applications on the REDI, I will undertake to provide the member
with that information.
* (1510)
Mr. Storie: Just one other question on this Lotteries
Funded Appropriations, it is not strictly Urban Economic Development
Initiatives, but a related matter, I guess, and that is the use of VLT funds to
support capital projects in some of the 52 communities that fall under the
Northern Affairs department. I am
wondering whether there was any discussion or any consideration of including a
portion of the Lotteries funds, which clearly come from citizens living in
Northern Affairs communities, into some special appropriation to the Department
of Northern Affairs.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we really are
very much into another department. I
will take the substance of that question as notice and follow up with my
colleague, but, again, my understanding is there is obviously nothing precluding
those communities from applying under the programs that currently exist, but
the member is suggesting, if I understand it, a separate allocation from within
that for a particular region of the province.
As I said, the substance of that I will take as notice.
Mr. Storie: I appreciate that. The minister should know that the Rural
Economic Development Initiatives and the monies, even the per capita dollars
that flow to municipalities, do not flow to Northern Affairs communities, I
believe. Certainly there have been no
major projects funded in Northern Affairs communities from Lotteries funds.
The amount of capital that is being expended this year by
the Department of Northern Affairs is exactly the same as it was last year, and
it is substantially less than the ongoing capital contributions through the
years 1981 to '88, which were $4 million or $5 million.
The infrastructure in our Northern Affairs communities is
deteriorating. Its lack of capital
contribution in part of the Department of Northern Affairs, on an ongoing
basis, as I say, it is about 50 percent of what it was a few years ago. There does not appear to be any major kind of
influx of support from lottery revenues.
I would simply argue that it is time we recognized that they too are making
their contribution. Although one might
argue that some of the REDI programs may have been used in Northern Affairs
communities, I think, by and large, that is not the case, and there may be a
way of supporting the infrastructure needs by targeting some of those
dollars. It is a suggestion.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will take it
as that. As the member himself
indicated, I do not think there is anything precluding those communities from
applying for the programs that exist under Rural Development, but I note his
suggestion.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Resolution
27.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Urban
Economic Development Initiatives for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Program ‑
Capital
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We will now move to
item 27.9 Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Program ‑ Capital.
Does the minister responsible have an opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, very briefly, I think as members know, we were one of the first
provinces to sign the infrastructure agreement with the federal
government. As of June 10 there are some
293 projects that have been announced, totalling approximately $178 million out
of the total allocation of $205 million, the estimated direct jobs as a result
of the announcements to date: about
3,200.
We are very pleased with the overall progress that we have
made to date, the outstanding co‑operation we have received from the
Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban
Municipalities and the City of Winnipeg, amongst many others, in terms of
moving this particular initiative along.
For the sake of moving this item along, that is all I will
say, and I will look forward to questions.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Thank you.
Does the critic of the official opposition party have an
opening statement?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we are going
to get into the details of the $23.8 million.
It seems to me that this is another bit of a shell game that the
Minister of Finance is playing with the people of Manitoba.
The provincial commitment is $68.2 million. I think everyone understands that the vast
majority of that $204 million has been allocated, projects approved for the
vast majority of it, so the likelihood of the province only spending $23
million in this fiscal year, I think, is probably quite slim. There is certainly a realistic chance that
much more than that will be spent this year.
In any event, I guess the major problem I have with this
whole program is, what was initially to be a far‑reaching structural
improvement kind of program for the province turned into what has happened in
the past, I guess, and unfortunately too often happens, an effort to satisfy
every small project, everyone's smaller dream, if you will, in the province. When you look through the list of projects, I
just fail to understand how they can legitimately be called long‑term
infrastructure goals of the province.
There are a couple of exceptions that were announced when
the initial announcement, the federal‑provincial agreement was
announced. They include the rural
gasification initiative which was some $21 million, but the vast majority of
the remainder fall into the category of small other capital projects. They include sidewalks and fixing up municipal
buildings, et cetera.
I would like, first of all, an explanation or some
information on the current allocation versus the total allocation and perhaps
some comment on whether the $23 million is a reasonable expectation for the
next fiscal year.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for
the second opposition party have an opening statement? [interjection] Thank
you.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we feel that
the $24 million is a reasonable allocation.
I did say in my brief opening remarks that we have allocated $178
million out of the $205 million, but on all of the project applications, we had
estimated start‑up dates, the time frames over which the project will be
obviously worked on. So we had the
opportunity to look at which years various projects fall into and where the
majority of work will be done, and at the same time recognizing that under the
agreement with the federal government in the first year we have to spend 35
percent, otherwise it lapses.
So I guess I am just indicating that we do intend to spend
the 35 percent because of the number of projects that we have had. We have had about a five‑to‑one request
under this program. When all is said and
done, I would suggest that we will be very close to our allocation in this year
because some of the projects, and some of the more significant projects, spill
over quite significantly into next year.
One obvious one is the Route 90 underpass here in Winnipeg with the vast
majority of that being done next year.
That is a very significant project.
So, yes, it is a reasonable allocation that meets the needs
of the agreement. We would argue that
with the approach that we and the other levels of government have taken to this
whole initiative, besides just doing sewer and water which are important in
many communities throughout our province, the objective all along was also to
do other infrastructure‑type development that will benefit our
communities for many years into the future.
We think we have struck a good balance between traditional
and municipal programs and other interesting and innovative programs in a whole
range of areas that will benefit various communities, various sectors of our
economy and all of Manitoba.
* (1520)
Mr. Storie: I guess that is a convenient explanation, a
convenient point of view if you are the minister. I am not sure, looking at the projects, that
it is really very realistic. We had an
opportunity to spend $200 million collectively for projects that were longer
term, difficult to do because of the scope of them, and it seems that again we
took the easy way out.
With all due respect to the communities where we are
upgrading fuel tank standards, in Dunrea, a community that I am familiar with,
I believe in the member for Turtle Mountain's (Mr. Rose) constituency, it is
hardly the long‑term kind of project that I think most people would feel
would be the most beneficial to the long‑term economic interests of the
province of Manitoba.
Having said that, I guess I would like to know from the
minister where a couple of the big projects are. He mentioned Route 90. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) was saying the other
day in the House that this was an important project supported by all three
levels of government. Today, in the
paper, one of the councillors, the deputy mayor, I believe, is saying he is not
sure that Route 90 was the city's priority, which leads one to wonder about the
logic, the necessity of spending a huge amount of money, a huge percentage of
the total funds on this particular project.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am not about
to comment on comments of an individual councillor through the media.
What I would base my understanding of this entire
initiative on is through direct discussions we have had with the City of
Winnipeg and obviously with the federal government. The City of Winnipeg has been a full participant
in terms of the priorities and the decision making on all of the urban
initiatives, and before the member steps out, for one moment I want to point
out to him that the underpass was the very first project submitted by the City
of Winnipeg‑‑not the last, it was the first project. So I would hope that gives him a sense of
some of the priorities that the negotiators for the City of Winnipeg are
giving, not random comments of an individual councillor through the media. This has been a very thorough, comprehensive
process with, I think, excellent input by the other levels of government.
Within rural Manitoba, priorities are being selected by the
local governments. I think, as the
member for Inkster knows, in rural Manitoba they are being reviewed and
approved by the Union of Manitoba Municipalities and by the Manitoba
Association of Urban Municipalities.
They are both the review process and the final approval process, and
certainly the feedback they have given me has been very complimentary, as has
been the feedback from most municipalities throughout rural Manitoba. Our relationship with the city and the
federal government has been excellent in terms of determining overall
priorities for the city of Winnipeg.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Under this particular program there are some
cities that actually went for the major projects. I believe it is in Quebec they are building‑‑is
it a convention centre, or it could even possibly be an arena.
I am wondering if the minister can indicate whether or not
there were any discussions on using infrastructure dollars for a much larger
capital investment, and specifically, the whole question of an entertainment
facility.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
correct in terms of Quebec receiving some support for a convention centre
facility. I should point out that each
agreement has various unique features with each individual province. I think that was the first project announced
in Quebec. My understanding is that it
was a project they were going to do anyway and had the opportunity to do it
through the infrastructure.
In terms of his other specific question about an arena,
there were some brief discussions about funding an arena through
infrastructure, but the final conclusion was that the kind of dollar amount
that has always been talked about from levels of government was what was
referred to in the Mauro report, roughly $30 million. So again, it is the same kind of overall
dollars we are talking about, not that there was an opportunity to do something
from infrastructure over and above what else governments might do. It was never viewed in that context of making
it part of a larger contribution from government so it was an either/or,
whether you would provide some support under infrastructure or whether you
would provide it in some other way, if you were going to provide it.
I think, for our part, the recognition was that the federal
government has supported arena initiatives in many cities across Canada from
outside of infrastructure. Ottawa just
recently received I believe about $8‑million or $9‑million support
for their facility outside of the infrastructure agreement, and other support
for other facilities has happened in that way.
So, although there was some brief discussion, obviously we
did not have the benefit of the Burns report and other information as we were
going through this information, and the decision was if governments were going
to play a role, that there would be an opportunity to do that outside of
infrastructure, recognizing we still impose the same general limitations. We were never discussing infrastructure,
because it is still government money, it is still coming from the three levels
of government, it is still coming from the taxpayers of Manitoba, that this
would not be something that was done over and above any other contributions
that governments might make. I do not
think anybody ever thought of it in those terms, nobody that I ever had any
discussions with, including the federal government and the City of Winnipeg,
that it was always an either/or if the governments were going to do something,
not both, that the capacity is not there to be doing both.
Mr. Lamoureux: I just seek some clarification. So the indication was it is an either/or,
that you cannot do both? Like, for example,
Route 90, providing gas in rural Manitoba would not have been possible under
this if, in fact, the City of Winnipeg or the province or the federal
government wanted to go ahead and build some form of an entertainment complex?
Mr. Stefanson: I guess one technical point is all of the
infrastructure projects that we referred to, the 293 projects have all been on
the basis of a submission, and nobody put forward a submission for anything to
do with an arena. The City of Winnipeg
did not put forward any submission for an arena as part of an infrastructure
project. So, from a technical sense,
there was no submission for that particular project.
Having said that, I think, when we have had discussions
around the Mauro report, around the arena, the kinds of dollars as potential
contributions that were talked about were in the vicinity of $30 million. I guess, without‑‑trying not to
be repetitive, the very brief discussions held around this initiative were on
the basis that that would be the overall contribution potentially from three
levels of government.
So, not that there was an opportunity to do something here
and then governments would still be called upon to do something else outside of
the infrastructure agreement for another significant sum of money. So we come back to the kinds of discussions,
without the two of us wading into that in any great detail, the discussions we
have had over the course of the last‑‑on Friday and today here in
this building about the requirement for a contribution of in the vicinity of
$90 million to $111 million for a facility from governments based on the
financial report that came out of the Burns committee.
Those kinds of discussions never took place around
infrastructure funding. It was always on
the basis of the magnitude of dollars that was referred to in the Mauro report,
and it was on the basis of sourcing it maybe from this pool of funding, not
that it would be incremental from any other support that governments might
give. Hopefully that is clear.
* (1530)
Mr. Lamoureux: I would imagine that the province of Quebec,
the convention centre is not being fully financed. Again, I could be wrong, it is just
speculation, that it is not being financed 100 percent through the
infrastructure program, that the infrastructure program is just one other
vehicle or pot of money that is being tapped into in order to make the
convention centre more economically feasible in terms of the construction of
such a site.
Here we have a significant sum of dollars. It could be a number of years before we get
any additional sums of this magnitude anyway, and even though it might not be
fair nor appropriate to say that 100 percent of it would have to be financed
through an infrastructure program, I am wondering if the Minister of Education
(Mr. Manness) can indicate whether or not he foresees any form of entertainment
facility, whether it is as an arena, whatever it might be, possibly built
without tapping into a program such as this, where you have joint agreements
between different levels that are prepared to put in sums of dollars. Surely to goodness, if the infrastructure
money is all allocated out and the province or the city or the federal
government then says, look, now we want to build an entertainment centre, you
would get the province of Quebec and other jurisdictions saying, well, just
wait a minute; you could have used infrastructure money like other
jurisdictions did in order to make that one‑time capital
expenditure. So I would ask the minister
that.
Also, again for clarification, if the Minister of Finance
can indicate whether or not the federal government or the provincial government‑‑he
has already indicated that the city government‑‑so those two levels
of government ever put on the table for discussion the possibility of using
infrastructure monies for any form of an entertainment centre, whether it is an
arena or whatever it might be.
Mr. Stefanson: I am trying to think of the simplest way to
say this, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but I guess it is when we looked at
something like the possibility of a new arena in Winnipeg, we viewed what can
taxpayers reasonably be expected to put into a new arena, irrespective of
whether it comes from infrastructure, Lotteries funding, tax dollars, whatever
the sourcing might be, what would be a reasonable contribution and expectation
from the taxpayers.
The Mauro report referred to $30 million. That has been the kind of number that I think
three levels of government have been certainly talking about and that was the
kind of number that, when we had a very, very brief discussion at our
infrastructure committee around whether or not an arena should be supported, it
was always in that vicinity, not $100 million, not $111 million.
So I guess, whether one argues it is the infrastructure or
where you would source it, it is still all money that is generated by taxpayers
here in Manitoba to the three levels of government. So I do not know how I can put that more
succinctly, that we just viewed what is the maximum amount that governments
collectively, and I think that has been the view of‑‑I cannot speak
for the other two levels of government, but I have not seen either of the other
levels of government coming forward in the last few days suggesting that they
are prepared to put in $40 million or $50 million or $60 million or $70 million
into a new arena. If the member is aware
of a level of government suggesting that, I would be interested to hear that.
We started on the premise of what is a ballpark or a range
that governments could be expected to potentially contribute, discussed that
and came to the conclusion that there were so many other requests and needs
under the infrastructure agreement, that the timing was still slightly further
in the future in terms of an arena when we were having these discussions, that
we continue to get pressure from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities,
along the line of what the member for Flin Flon I think alluded to, the
traditional needs of many of the municipalities.
FCM, of course, adopted the position that all $205 million
should go into sewer and water and basic municipal infrastructure, not deviate
at all. A heavy construction industry in
Manitoba adopted a position of certainly significantly contributing to their
industry. The member has probably met
with them on occasion. So you have all
of these different groups that come forward saying, here are our priorities;
here are our needs.
We did it on that kind of a basis in terms of looking at
whether or not this would be a funding source for potentially an arena in
Winnipeg, but never on the basis that you could be looking at a combination
from here and a combination from somewhere else that make the contributions
from government up in the $111‑million vicinity. That was never a basis of discussion from any
of the levels of government suggesting that was something we should even be
considering and, as I say, from a technical point of view nobody brought
forward an application on this project to begin with. So our discussions were always more generic,
more conceptual of the issue of an arena.
I should point out, I think much to Winnipeg's frustration
is that Winnipeg was the second major convention centre built in Canada. At that time they received no federal
dollars. Subsequent to that, most other
convention centres built across Canada received significant federal
dollars. There are some in Winnipeg that
argue if a facility is going to be built, the federal government should be
doing it outside of the infrastructure agreement, that there are many other
pressures. As I said in my opening
comments, to date we have in excess of 700 to 800 applications and requests for
$800 million towards this program, and that does not include any requests for
an arena. So it gives you a sense of the
wants, desires and needs that are out there in Manitoba.
Mr. Lamoureux: The minister indicated that 35 percent of the
monies actually have to be spent in this fiscal year. What would be the time frame for the balance?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, a minimum of
35 percent has to be spent this year, fiscal '94‑95. A minimum of 50 percent has to be spent next
year in '95‑96. A maximum of 15
percent can spill over to what would be the third year, because all along it
has been portrayed as basically a two‑year agreement. So that forces a minimum of 85 percent over
these two fiscal years.
Mr. Lamoureux: What percentage then would actually be at
this point in time approved as being classified as being allocated out? At what stage of the percentage point are we
at?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, about 80
percent has been committed. I think I
indicated at the outset $178 million, and that is out of a program of $205
million. It is approximately 80 percent that
has been committed to date.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would like
to revisit the issue of Route 90 again.
When the program was announced and the initial allocation
was made, in the area called road works‑‑I forget, it was one section‑‑the
City of Winnipeg received $59 million out of the total of $65 million in that
section.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Excuse me, would you
mind pulling your microphone a little closer, please? Thank you.
Mr. Storie: If the minister wants the details, it was
Kenaston Boulevard, Wilkes to McGillivray Boulevard, $9.7 million; Kenaston
Boulevard underpass, $29 million; Lagimodiere, $1.2 million; residential street
renewal program for the City of Winnipeg, $9.9 million; and community services
infrastructure renewal program, $10 million‑‑a total of $59 million
out of $65 million for the City of Winnipeg.
The one project that stands out obviously as the single
most expensive project is the underpass.
The minister suggested that I not weigh too heavily the remarks of one
councillor from the City of Winnipeg when he identified that this was not the
city's priority, although there was a suggestion that was political pressure to
make this the city's priority.
* (1540)
Given the amount of money that is being spent on this one
project, given the uncertainties surrounding the necessity of this project
including the possible merger of CN and CP, certainly the desire in the past on
the part of many people in the city of Winnipeg and outside for the relocation
of that line, it strikes me that this is one of the projects where the
government, if it wished, could do some reallocation yet if someone would show
some leadership and say that this is not a necessary expenditure at this point
in time.
Now I know the minister is going to argue that this is an
important project and, of course, there may have been a period of time when it
was viewed as essential, but there are alternatives. Certainly, although we have heard referenced the
necessity of developing this route as an important piece of the puzzle I guess
in terms of the development of the Winnipeg Airport, again, there are
alternatives and there are alternative routes to the airport, routes that would
not necessitate the building of this underpass, routes that would alleviate any
necessity of heavy traffic coming down that particular route to the airport
that would simplify transportation traffic.
I am wondering whether this particular project was vetted
with the alternatives in mind or was it simply a quick look at some priority
list that the city had sent or somebody had sent to the provincial government,
along with the political priorities of this government, that went into the
decision making. Have alternatives to
that underpass been considered since the initial allocation?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I did not take
down the numbers that the member was reading into the record, but I think he
accumulated them from, probably, announcements made at the time. In terms of how the allocations were done
initially, I think he knows $60 million was allocated to rural Manitoba for
priorities to be determined by that review committee of the UMM and MAUM. In fact, not only do they determine them,
they are the final recommendation on them.
Sixty million was allocated to the City of Winnipeg, again,
for priorities within the city of Winnipeg, and $84 million was allocated for
what was called strategic initiatives of which rural gasification and the Route
90 project are two of the largest expenditures in the strategic initiative, $84
million.
An Honourable Member: . . . which two?
Mr. Stefanson: Rural gasification and Route 90, those two
together would total over $50 million.
I want to assure him, and I think he knows there are no
uncertainties around this project if he has had the opportunity to talk to CN
and, if not, he should do that. I would
encourage him to do that. This is a
project that is supported by the three levels of government. I sat in on the meetings with representatives
from the city and from the federal government.
Since he is attributing things to newspaper columns and
remarks, he would have noted the comments of a member of the federal government‑‑I
believe he is not the M.P. for the area adjacent there, one Mr. Reg Alcock, on
Friday or Saturday‑‑his comments about the merits of this project
and the need for this project.
I want to assure him that this project, like all of them,
will go through all of the due process, all of the licensing, the permits and
the environmental assessments that are required for a project of this
magnitude. I guess I am somewhat
disappointed that he does not recognize the need for this project and the
benefits that it will create for Winnipeg and all of Manitoba, that this is the
No. 1 underpass requirement of the city in their capital budget. It is the first underpass that should be done
in terms of their priorities.
I am sure he has travelled throughout all parts of the
city. He would recognize that Route 90
is a major north‑south route throughout our city, immediately adjacent to
our 24‑hour airport, the home to several of our major trucking
firms. I think we have seven of the 11
interprovincial trucking firms with their headquarters here. The majority of those would be on Route 90,
at the north end of Route 90, but the majority of them would be on Route
90. Route 90, in terms of the access to
the airport and the access for our major north‑south route through
Winnipeg, is the major route.
It represents significant economic opportunity as we see
more development taking place at our 24‑hour airport, and the
significance of transportation in general in Manitoba. The combination of our airport, of our rail
and of our trucking industry‑‑these have traditionally been
economic strengths of Winnipeg and will continue to be economic strengths of
Winnipeg, but you have to have the infrastructure in place to ensure that that
will be the case, and that is part of what putting the underpass on Route 90
near Wilkes will do.
Mr. Storie: Well, I certainly would not want to take
issue with such an august group of people, but there are other people in the
community, amongst them, obviously, city councillors, who do not feel that is
necessarily the case.
I would certainly argue that a north‑south route, if
you wanted to develop one which was going to be used by heavy trucks on a
continual basis, should be the Perimeter.
It should use the Perimeter, and it should come into the Winnipeg
Airport which is supposedly, and hopefully will be, some sort of intermodal,
strategic transportation hub in the not‑to‑distant future. Why you would want to now start developing a
route‑‑and the minister should be well aware that Kenaston is not
even developed through to Whyte Ridge at this point, never mind the other
communities that are in line with that particular route that are going to be
disrupted as well.
It just does not make any sense. The Perimeter is only a few miles away. The Perimeter is designed and built for heavy
truck transport. It is designed to be a
route to this centre. I realize that
this would have been on the priority list of the administrators of the City of
Winnipeg. I realize that when the City
of Winnipeg was asked for an initial list of projects that were on the shelf
that could be proceeded with quickly, the underpass would have been on the
list.
I am not arguing that you should not proceed with the
development of Kenaston Boulevard. The
fact is that developing Kenaston continuing on south may, in fact, make a great
deal of sense. The minister knows that
that is not the only location that may require, or would require, if you asked
the people in the cars, an underpass.
The same could be said for Waverley and just off Grant. They may require an underpass there as well,
and there is heavy traffic on Waverley as well.
The point is, and the question is, what is in the best long‑term
interests of the city, and what is the best way to spend this money at this
point? I think if you asked the
citizens, never mind the people that are already opposed to the further
development of Kenaston‑‑and there is a group now in the city of
Winnipeg who are opposing the development‑‑but if you asked people
generally, where would you want traffic, potentially traffic carrying dangerous
goods? Would you want them going through
residential community after residential community, or would you want them on
the Perimeter coming down into the airport in an area which is, at this point,
undeveloped agricultural land for the most part still? I think the answer would be obvious.
I am saying, just because this was on the drawing books and
has been on the drawing books since the 1970s does not mean that it has to be
the priority today, nor necessarily should it be.
We are talking about spending $30 million in an area which
will ultimately result in heavy traffic through existing residential areas,
developing residential areas, when I do not think it is necessary.
There are other people, including people who are involved
with the Winnipeg Airport development authority, who have another plan, who
might believe that an alternative is even better.
* (1550)
So I wish the minister, I hope the minister, although we
all want him to proceed and expend as much of this money and create as much
economic activity as is possible, I think we should not be afraid to
reprioritize, to rethink, as the circumstances warrant.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess this
is going to be a case of where we agree to disagree, which happens on occasion
around here. I have indicated that this
is with the support of the two others levels of government, this project,
recognizing the need.
The member talks about trucks. I would encourage him to drive Route 90, and
he would find out that trucks already travel on Route 90.
He talks about the Perimeter being a few miles away. I am not sure what he means by all of this in
terms of how he is going to access the airport from, I guess what he means, the
west Perimeter or the north Perimeter, what he is implying by access from the
Perimeter. I live in the west part of
Winnipeg, and I am not sure whether he is talking about doing something to
Inkster Boulevard and then some other way of getting in or what his grandiose,
multimillion‑dollar plan probably is.
He talks about opposition, as well. Having served on Winnipeg City Council, I can
assure him that you do not do a major urban project without some opposition,
including even the Kildonan Bridge. I
happened to be on City Council at the time with some of my colleagues, when the
Minister of Urban Affairs of the day, who happens today to be the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer), in the House made it conditional that the funding was
conditional on us proceeding with the Kildonan Bridge; in fact, suggesting that
the Kildonan Bridge should be moved ahead of Bishop Grandin and ahead of the
Charleswood Bridge if we wanted to receive the funding, and I am sure even that
project had opposition. Any major urban
infrastructure initiative in Winnipeg has opposition. They all do.
That is the reality of dealing with any changes.
The member does know that the extension through to Whyte
Ridge is also part of a separate initiative and will be done under the
infrastructure, as well.
He refers to Waverley.
Well, obviously, there will be no need to do any underpass at Waverley
Street when an underpass is done at Route 90.
So it is a project that has the support of all three levels
of government, has economic benefits for the city of Winnipeg and is one worthy
of all of our support, I assure him.
Mr. Storie: Well, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I feel
immeasurably better now that the minister has explained that.
I do not think the minister is being forthright with the
committee. Certainly, it is a political
priority of many people, but I think that some sober second thought on this
particular project might be worthwhile.
I do know where the Perimeter is. I also know where the airport is. I know that this route is already travelling
extensively through residential areas, so the traffic certainly is not coming
from south Winnipeg down Kenaston at this point. What the minister is going to do is encourage
that, rather than‑‑most of the traffic or much of the traffic is
going to be going north‑south, not only in the city of Winnipeg but
outside the city of Winnipeg, and if it is going to be traffic particularly
heading into the United States and beyond, then you might as well use another
route.
Having it all transported through the residential sections
of the community is, I think, shortsighted, and that is why I think this
decision should be reconsidered. Perhaps
they could find some other way of spending that money which would be more in the
long‑term interests of the community, as well as not interfere with the
enjoyment of the community by others.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will leave that for the
time being. The minister and I are going
to disagree obviously, and it seems that they are going to insist on
proceeding, whether it really makes sense or not.
The second issue was the gasification program, and there
was some $21 million set aside under the original allocation for rural
gasification. I am wondering if the
minister could update us on that particular initiative.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, Centra Gas is
currently going through a series of meetings and information forums in the
communities that are affected, and I guess on the basis of the outcome of that,
would then be pursuing entering individual agreements with those
communities. Obviously we will be then
dealing with the infrastructure secretariat and the funding in terms of
carrying on with the project subject to, obviously, communities supporting it
and signing on to be a part of it. So
they are right in the midst, I think.
Maybe some have been held already, and I know they were scheduled to
basically be held in the last few weeks of June. So we are awaiting the outcome really of
those meetings that are taking place.
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I wonder if
the minister has at his handy disposal a complete list of all projects approved
so we could have a nice, concise, complete, up‑to‑date list with
all of the costs or project costs. I
know we have received some at different times in an ongoing‑‑we
have not received a total list.
Mr. Stefanson: Unfortunately, I do not have copies of a
complete list here today. As the member
has indicated, he has seen them as they have been announced. We can certainly undertake to provide a
comprehensive list to members if they so want, and we would gladly do that.
Mr. Plohman: I say that, yes, we would like that. I do not know whether the minister would like
to do it constituency by constituency or‑‑
An Honourable Member: We do not do that.
Mr. Plohman: There is one member across the way saying
that that is not done that way. I assume
then that the minister does not have lists based on constituency approvals.
Mr. Stefanson: As projects come in they are assigned a
number, and we can either provide a listing in numerical order for the member
or by alphabetical listing. Those are
both readily available through our information system.
Mr. Plohman: The minister is saying then that the
constituency‑by‑constituency approvals is only for internal use.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I should
indicate that with a little bit of work, we could provide that what the member
thinks would be useful to him, a listing of projects on a constituency‑by‑constituency
basis, either federal constituencies or provincial constituencies, but I should
point out to him that in the case of the rural projects, the $60‑million
rural allocation, that was reviewed and approved by the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities and the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities. All of the recommendations have been accepted
for the $60 million, and no other projects within that $60‑million pool
of resources have been approved, other than the ones that have been recommended
and approved by that committee.
I am sure he is not in any way suggesting political
interference with those decisions, because they are being made by municipal
representatives from across Manitoba who take this task very seriously and I
think have done an outstanding job on behalf of communities throughout our
province.
* (1600)
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not
imagine that the minister is being overly sensitive about the request on a
constituency‑by‑constituency basis.
I never said anything about political interference by either himself or
other groups. I simply wanted it based
on a constituency basis. I think it is
worthwhile information so we can get a good comparison. I would appreciate if the minister could
provide it on that basis.
It is particularly important for my constituency and I will
ask some questions about that. I would
think that it is very relevant considering that the minister says the
municipalities have recommended the expenditures and projects up to now, and
they have all been approved upon recommendation by the municipalities. Is that correct?
Mr. Stefanson: I do want to suggest to the member for
Dauphin, I am not the slightest bit sensitive.
I just indicated it would take a little bit of work of the secretariat,
but if that is the information he thinks would be of value to himself or this
committee, we will undertake to provide it.
Maybe I am being a little bit repetitive from earlier, but
when the initial allocation was done, of the $205‑million total project,
$60 million was allocated to rural Manitoba for what was determined to be
traditional municipal projects. That is
the $60 million that the UMM and MAUM are making recommendations and we have been
accepting their recommendations on.
Sixty million has been allocated to the City of Winnipeg
for the same idea. Eighty‑four
million has been set aside for the strategic initiatives. So within that $60 million that I referred to
that MAUM and UMM have recommendations over, yes, we have accepted all of their
recommendations. The only items that
have been approved from that pool of money have been recommendations that came
from that body. That is how we intend to
function, because they are the ones that are reviewing all of the
projects. They are the ones that
represent the municipal levels of government, know the communities, in many
respects, the best, on a day‑to‑day basis. So within that pool of money, we are
accepting their recommendations.
Within the other $84 million, there are some discussions
and we have had some discussions already about Route 90 and rural gasification,
but within the $60 million, yes, it is UMM and MAUM who make the
recommendations that we accept.
Mr. Plohman: I thank the minister for that. We want to discuss some of the priorities
under the $84 million, including the electronic highway issue. I do not think that has been discussed yet.
I do want to follow up a bit first on the $60 million. Can the minister indicate how much of that
now has been allocated, in the absence of the completed list, for rural
Manitoba? Could the minister indicate
how much yet remains unallocated?
Mr. Stefanson: There is approximately $8 million left to
allocate.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, so the
minister is saying, as of now, dollars allocated for projects, $52 million has
been allocated and has now been, we could say, spoken for. Is that correct? If so, what is the total value of the
projects that are going to be undertaken as a result of the $52‑million
allocation under this program?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, yes, approximately
$52 million has been allocated to date, and the element of that would lead to
higher‑‑the second part of his question‑‑higher overall
projects, the 52 is split one‑third, one‑third, one‑third‑‑federal
government, provincial and city‑‑but there are some projects where
the infrastructure funding only represented a percentage of the project, where
the municipalities are still going to undertake the project and top it up.
An Honourable Member: Don't I know it.
Mr. Stefanson: And the member indicates, does he not know
it, and I know he is going to get to a particular project in a few minutes, but
we could certainly undertake to get him a general figure of what that might be,
but that the only case where the projects end up being of a higher dollar
amount is where this funding is a percentage of it, and the municipalities are
still going to go ahead with the projects and find the residual themselves to
complete the project. But $52 million is
the three levels of government.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is really saying, then, just
over $17 million is provincial money for rural Manitoba, and some projects are
going ahead with greater than one‑third share by the municipality. Can we have a commitment from the minister to
have a list of those projects where the municipalities are contributing more
than a third of the project?
Mr. Stefanson: In time for the next session.
Mr. Plohman: In time for, before, the next election?
Mr. Stefanson: Next session.
Mr. Plohman: Oh, next session.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just to finish, I think it
would be helpful if the minister could provide that within the next week or so. It is not going to do much good if it is left
off until the fall or next spring. What
we want is to have an idea of how many municipalities are actually able to
provide additional funding beyond their one third.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will
undertake to provide as much of that information as we can. You know, as I have indicated, the process,
all of these have been projects that have been approved by the municipal review
committee based in many cases on going back to individual municipalities and
getting confirmation that if they got a certain percentage of the funding they
would go ahead with the project and so on.
So we will certainly undertake to provide as much of that
information, recognizing it is something that changes as various projects come
on, or potentially some adjustments are made to projects, but we can attempt to
provide that.
Mr. Plohman: It would be good to have it as of, say, June
30 or something. I know there will be
changes after that.
The minister perhaps could give us right off the top an
indication of projects that did not go ahead because the amount allocated was
not sufficient to lever the project.
Does he have an idea of any that have actually been cancelled to this
point, or appeals made?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, out of the 293
projects approved to date, less than half a dozen have expressed concern about
their ability to proceed with their project and/or requesting any appeal or
reconsideration by the advisory committee.
Mr. Plohman: Then a rather remarkable, unusual situation
has developed for the project proposed by the town and R.M. of Dauphin with
regard to the recreation complex that was proposed. There, the original proposal was for a $9.2‑million
project, which would have required $3 million from each level of
government. It included the construction
of a skating rink, a curling rink, a pool and administrative offices to replace
existing old buildings and facilities, as the minister knows, and some that do
not exist, for example, a pool that is only seasonal.
Then they went with a second proposal when asked to scale
it down, and they proposed the construction of a curling rink, pool and
administrative offices for $5.9 million, which would have just been around $2
million each.
* (1610)
Thirdly, they proposed the construction of the pool with
the recreation offices for $4.2 million, which was less than half of the
original proposal.
The people working on it had an innovative plan that would
have seen the cooling used for the ice plant, the energy required, the heat
given off to provide heat for the pool, because one of the greater costs of
operating pools is the energy required to maintain temperatures. Of course, without the curling rink happening
at the same time and the ice plant connected with it, it is not nearly as
efficient, but they reluctantly went to the third proposal, which is $4.2
million as opposed to the $5.9 million.
What was approved‑‑and apparently now the
minister is saying by the municipalities; we will have to see what kind of
criteria they used and what kind of process was in place for them to approve it‑‑was
in complete isolation from reality in terms of what was required to make a
viable project. There is nothing that is
viable about $1.8 million, which was the approval, $600,000 of it, of course,
being the municipalities themselves, $1.2 million from two levels of
government, really, about $600,000 each.
They will need a project that involves about $4 million to make it a
viable project. They have appealed to
the selection committee.
I want to ask the minister if he could provide us, perhaps
first of all, the status of that appeal, and then we will work backward as to
how we arrived at this amount. Was it
just on a per capita basis, and so on.
First, I would just like to know the status of that appeal,
if the minister is aware of it, and what input he might be able to have or his
staff in taking another look at this proposal, considering I guess that there
is $8 million of shared money left.
Mr. Stefanson: I am very well aware of the project, both the
original and then the scale‑down.
To the best of my knowledge, the appeal has not been heard yet but will
be heard by the advisory committee the next time they meet.
I guess one point worth reminding all of us when it comes
to dealing with the Infrastructure Works Agreement is what this has represented
in many cases is an opportunity for many parts of our province to get support
from two levels of government for, in some cases certainly, projects that would
not have been entitled to support prior to the agreement being signed.
So there is, in many cases, a significant benefit for many
communities that if they have worthwhile projects that they think meet their
community needs and the needs of their citizens, they would have been going
ahead with‑‑hopefully irrespective or trying to go ahead with‑‑and
the infrastructure agreement has allowed many communities the opportunity to
proceed with those needed projects because of the contribution of two‑thirds
of the funding from two other levels of government.
I am well aware of the project. It is an excellent project. I know the community has put an awful lot of
work into it. I have had the opportunity
to meet with a delegation prior to the filing of their appeal, and we will
await feedback from the advisory committee after they have dealt with the
issue.
Mr. Plohman: Before I ask about that process, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson, the minister could reflect on how the $1.8 million‑‑I
asked the mayor, Mr. Inky Mark, who is the mayor of Dauphin, about that. I said, did you have any final say into the
amount that was approved? In other
words, were you asked what can you do with $1.8 million, considering $600,000
is your own money? He said no, in the
final analysis.
It sounds to me like a figure was picked out of the air and
said, well, we can spare this much for this project. Is that about how it was done, as opposed to
based on a kind of a viable proposal and say, well, this is something that they
can work with as opposed to something that was just kind of pulled out of the
air and said, well, we can spare this much for this project?
Mr. Stefanson: I cannot speak for all of the workings of the
committee, but the member for Dauphin uses the expression, spare this much
money or these many dollars. One of the
main criteria of the committee is to strike regional balance. I outlined that there is $60 million
allocated to the committee, and obviously a significant geographic area and
some 200‑plus municipalities throughout our province to meet the wants
and needs and requests from those communities.
So it is with a combination of the amount of money they
have to allocate individual projects, regional balance, all of these kinds of
things that the committee looks at.
There usually is some give and take with communities when
they are looking for how much an allocation will do towards their individual
project. They will be reviewing this
Dauphin request.
The member refers to a viable project, and I guess I come
back to the point that if these projects in communities are viable and local
representatives deem that their citizens need them and want them‑‑as
I say, if the infrastructure program did not exist today those communities
would be looking for ways to still meet the needs of their citizens through
whatever means was available to them.
Dauphin has made a specific request to have this looked at
again, and I am sure the advisory committee will take a serious look at that
request.
Mr. Plohman: The minister keeps referring to this, well,
if they were important enough for the communities, then they would have maybe
built them on their own. The fact is
there is a certain size of projects that a community just is not able to do even
though they are absolutely needed.
That is why over the years we have had programs that have
assisted communities, especially, from my perspective, rural Manitoba where a
lot of the communities are in decline, to kind of stem the tide on that, and
offset it as to improve the amenities so that people will be able to enjoy some
of the kinds of benefits that urban dwellers take for granted, such as indoor
pools and swim clubs and therapy options for senior citizens, and that kind of
thing, which just is not available in Dauphin.
This is not just for the town of Dauphin, which only has
about 8,500 people, but it services the whole Parkland and would be used by
residents throughout the Parkland. While
the smaller communities were receiving the full amounts of their smaller
projects that they had requested, this one was not given in the same
proportion, even though it would service all of those residents as well.
As a matter of fact, a resolution and letters of support
came forward from some 36 agencies and municipalities and towns and villages in
the Parkland region supporting this project.
It was not just a project put forward by the R.M. and town, which in
itself is evidence of co‑operation, but, in fact, reflected the request
from 36 organizations and municipalities and towns and villages in the
area. Surely, the minister should make a
case for an additional amount to be allocated because of the up to 36,000
people that could be serviced by this facility.
* (1620)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not argue
with much of what the member says in terms of the importance of the project to
not only Dauphin but the surrounding community in meeting the needs of that
entire region of our province.
Having said that, there were various projects that would
fall in the same kind of category that came forward, either in rural Manitoba
or even here in the city of Winnipeg.
Part of why we have an advisory committee made up of representation from
the UMM and MAUM is to go through all of these throughout Manitoba and give us
their best advice. That is what they
have done. We made the decision to
accept their recommendations in all cases.
We have not added or deleted from their lists at all.
Even though the member refers to 36 agencies or
organizations, I know when that was brought up we followed up on that. My understanding is, other than the two
municipal entities, Dauphin and the R.M., all other organizations made
individual infrastructure applications of their own, and requested that they be
dealt with and they get those projects approved as well.
Had they all come forward waiving all other requests, that
might have enhanced the amount of contribution, I do not know. That would have been something the advisory
committee would have looked at. So I
think while we recognize they all support this project, they also have projects
that they have put into the hopper and they have been hoping to get
supported. I know many of them have
received support for various projects.
The community has made an appeal that is going before the
advisory committee. At this point in
time, I do not know what else can be said about that individual project until
we hear what the advisory committee does with that appeal request.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
refers to the advisory committee. Has he
provided a list of the people that are on that advisory committee to this
committee? If he has not, would he table
that list?
Mr. Stefanson: Because the list is not lengthy, I can
provide it to the member right now. The
voting members of the committee‑‑there are two representatives from
the Union of Manitoba Municipalities, Mr. Jack Nicol and Mr. Larry Walker; and
there are two voting members from the Manitoba Association of Urban
Municipalities, Mr. Art Dyck and Ms. Stella Locker.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, so there are four
people on this advisory, voting members, the minister says, as opposed to
nonvoting advisory members. Where are
they from?
Mr. Stefanson: The additional people that will be there to
provide information but do not participate in decisions or voting would be the
executive director of each of those organizations. UMM would be Jerome Mauws, MAUM would be
Rochelle Zimberg, and there is a representative from the provincial and federal
government. There is also, as I
introduced at the outset, Mr. Bruce Birdsell who is the secretary to the
infrastructure committee. The primary
function of those people is to provide information when you are getting
requests of this nature. Sometimes it
might be some other funding being provided or other funding sources through,
you know, whether it is a PAMWI agreement or Water Services Board or whatever
it might be. So they are really there as
an information resource.
Mr. Plohman: Is the minister holding out any hope that
there are other sources of funding from provincial sources or federal, such as
Community Places or anything that could be used to kind of add on under certain
exceptional circumstances to perhaps make a viable project, such as in the case
that we are talking about here? Has that
been contemplated or considered?
While the minister is considering that answer, I just want
to raise one other point with him.
Insofar as the Parkland area, the minister should be aware that a recent
study done by Prairie Research Associates, and by the government for the
Department of Highways and Transportation, showed that the Parkland has eight
of 15 rapidly declining centres in rural Manitoba. In the whole province, eight of 15 of those
are situated in the Parkland, and the outlook is bleak for the Parkland with
declining population projected by the year 2016 of 18.5 percent, further
decline in population. Only one other
region in the province has a decline, an absolute net decline projected, and
that is the southwest, but all the others are projected to have an increase in
population.
I think the minister would agree that there are some
special circumstances, especially when you consider employment statistics that
have been completed lately that have shown as well, through Workforce 2000 and
Assiniboine Community College in Dauphin has shown as well, that the percentage
of people who have a Grade 9 education, for example, is much lower in the
Parkland than the rest of Manitoba.
There are several pieces of information that have come from his own
government that have shown that there has to be some positive attention paid to
the whole Parkland region insofar as employment statistics, insofar as decline
in population and so on. So there is
ample reason to provide some special attention for this kind of situation.
I bring that to the minister's attention, if he is not
aware of those statistical pieces of information, and ask him to consider if
the $8 million which is going to be, I anticipate, enormous pressure from so
many different projects that it is going to be very difficult to see $2.5
million of that $8 million allocated to one project. I would like to see that, but the probability
of that happening means that perhaps there has to be some innovative approaches
taken here with regard to either looking at the $84 million in terms of
strategic initiatives or other programs to indeed bring us up to a level that
can make a viable project.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the interest of time, I
am going to leave this with hopefully a response from the minister because we
have a number of other questions to deal with.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thank the
member for the information he provided.
To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing precluding any project
from qualifying under any other government programs that might be available,
and that might well end up being an avenue that has to be pursued in this case,
as well.
But whether the glass is half full or half empty, so far,
Dauphin has received an allocation of $1.8 million which is a very significant
allocation in comparison to many of the projects, but the member has certainly
raised some valid points around this entire issue.
Mr. Plohman: It is also a question of whether these
advisory committee members are aware of the kinds of pieces of information that
we have just presented. I know that the
lobbyists from the town have certainly provided a lot of information, but I am
not certain that that information is available to them.
* (1630)
I also wanted to ask the minister about the electronic
highway allocation. He has $84 million
allocated for gasification and for major projects, such as the Kenaston
overpass which my colleague has already addressed in terms of our concern about
the priority that has been placed on that project and the amount of money
allocated for that one project.
However, I would like to ask whether the minister can give
us a figure of dollars now allocated for development of the electronic highway
in Manitoba and in what form. Is it
definitive at this point, or is it something that is just in the very early
formative stages and has not been developed to the stage where any detail can
be provided?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there has been
a notional allocation of $15 million, and the details are being worked on right
now.
Mr. Plohman: This is 15 out of the 84 that the minister is
saying.
Mr. Stefanson: That is correct.
Mr. Plohman: Would any of this flow, in a notional way,
since the minister is talking about a notional allocation‑‑is any
earmarked for developing the Distance Education initiatives, or is the
allocation that the minister has in the Department of Education completely
separate from this allocation?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, out of that
total allocation, the $15 million, we see the Distance Education element being
a significant portion of it. That is the
basis of a great deal of the work that is being done right now.
Mr. Plohman: I have a little bit of difficulty in
determining then how this money is going to be allocated, unless it is going to
a couple of years down the road, because they‑‑and if you pardon
the pun there, I know is it not a road, it is a highway.
The minister has just released a request for proposals for
Distance Education initiatives which he says a maximum per project can be
$65,000 which, of course, is a pretty modest proposal. I do not know how that is going to result in
significant initiatives from areas of the province where they have already done
a lot of groundwork and would need significantly more than that to get their
proposal off the ground.
They are pilot proposals, and they are supposed to
demonstrate the feasibility of distance education, of various methods and so on
and equipment for possible widespread use in the province, I would understand.
So is the minister saying they are going to wait with this
$15 million until this has been done, the substantial amount of the $15 million
that the minister referred to, until these pilots have been done and
evaluations have been done? We might be
talking two or three years yet.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the short
answer would be, the two things are not tied in the respect that the member
outlines. There will not be a need to be
waiting for these individual pilots.
There already have been some pilots as well that are run. I know Evergreen School Division ran one as
well.
So no, there is no reason in terms of the initiative that
was announced recently by the Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) that that
will in any way delay the comprehensive requirement that is being worked on
right now, and we are expecting that fairly shortly.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying really that he is
going to forge ahead boldly where no person has gone before, even though these
pilots are supposed to provide significant information as to what the province
should be doing in terms of priorities.
I find that rather unusual, that the province is embarking on pilots
when, in fact, the minister seems to think he knows where he is going already
with this money.
Mr. Stefanson: Again, I think the member for Dauphin is
misinterpreting what is happening in terms of the benefit of the individual
pilots. He himself expressed the concern
of the dollar allocation for the pilots as opposed to the‑‑and I am
far from a technical expert, I willingly admit, when it comes to this
field. If you want to talk accounting,
then I will wade into accounting.
He used the word "highway" or "road" or
whatever earlier and that a major requirement in our province is the network
itself. When I refer to the
comprehensive report that is being worked on, that is what is being worked on,
as opposed to an individual pilot, that can help in many respects, I would
imagine.
The Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) is better equipped
to talk about the benefits of the pilots than I am in terms of impact on
curriculum, impact on two‑way video conferencing, and so on, and the
whole functioning of the individual pilots as opposed to the highway or the
network or the road itself that has to be put in place here in our province if
we are going to implement distance education throughout various regions of our
province.
Mr. Plohman: It seems that what kind of form the highway
takes has some bearing on what kind of mechanism will be put in place at the
end of that highway to deal with these pilots.
There is different technology available.
I guess I would take it then that the minister is saying that the report
that is being done is going to determine what form the highway will take,
whether it is going to be fibre optics cable or whether it might be digital
microwave or some other form.
Are those the kind of questions that have to be answered
before the $15 million is spent, as opposed to the pilots, the individual
pilots, that are being entered into here?
It seems to me, though, that there is a connection between the kinds of
pilots that are being undertaken and the highway that is put in place in terms
of what form they might take. The left
hand has to know what the right hand is doing.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member for
Dauphin is certainly partly correct. The
report itself that is being worked on is the nature of the highway, whether it
is fibre optics or microwave technology or whatever might be the best to
utilize here in Manitoba.
I would have to get him some more details on the status of
the individual pilots and the relationship between the pilots and the overall
review that is being done on the overall highway itself. That is the basis of the comprehensive report
that is being worked on.
Again, there might well be various regions that can already
run a pilot in terms of meeting the needs of an individual school division
and/or an individual community, and also provide opportunities in terms of
developing further expertise around functioning in that environment and so on. So I do not know. I would not, for a moment, want to suggest
that there is not a relationship, yet I think they can be going ahead in the
fashion that we are discussing.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is
entirely possible. I would like to know
whether the minister can provide us with the names of the experts that are
preparing this report, and the company or companies that they may represent.
* (1640)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will obtain
those details and provide them.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am surprised
the minister would not make an attempt to provide that right today. I am not asking about the pilots that the
Minister of Education (Mr. Manness) is involved with; I am asking something
that the minister is directly responsible for.
This $15 million that he is talking about, I am sure, we
will be talking about widely with the public of Manitoba insofar as this major
expenditure. Obviously, the minister
feels this is pretty important if he has got $15 million allocated. and yet he
cannot tell us who is preparing this report that he is awaiting.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am quite
surprised by the comments of the member for Dauphin. A few minutes ago, he wanted me to provide
him with a list of the members of the advisory committee for rural
Manitoba. I very quickly gave him the
names at that time. Now I am telling
him, if he is thinking that there is some external consulting firm that we are
currently utilizing that we are not prepared to share with him, that is not the
case.
The reason I am not in a position of providing names is we
have a series of departments that are involved in it from internal, from I, T
and T to Highways and Transportation, to a secondment from the Manitoba
Telephone System, to Economic Development Board, to our Information Technology,
and so on. Those are some of the areas,
but I would have to get all of the departments represented and the individuals'
names, so that was the basis of why I said I would need some time. I would not want to leave somebody off the
list or provide an inappropriate or incorrect name.
Mr. Plohman: So the minister is saying they are doing the
assessment within the province, yet there are contracts let with companies
outside of the province. The question
is: What are they doing then? If we are preparing an assessment of what
Manitoba needs and what would be the most feasible kind of electronic highway
interlinking in the province of Manitoba to proceed with to spend this $15
million‑plus, I am sure, then I fail to see the connection.
The minister is leaving the impression that it is
completely being done in house, that a number of departments kind of got
together and they are pooling their resources and away they go. It seems to me that we are missing something
here, and maybe the minister is not intentionally, I am sure, not being
completely forthcoming with this committee.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I assure the
member for Dauphin that I am being completely forthcoming, and under the
infrastructure secretariat there have been no contracts let to work on any
distance education or information highway or telecommunication initiative, that
the review that I referred to is being done on the basis of utilization of our
internal resources within government. I
cannot speak for all departments of government and what other initiatives
individual departments might be doing, but the initiative he is asking me about
today, as it relates to the infrastructure initiatives, I have already outlined
the process, and I am being totally forthright with him.
Mr. Plohman: The contract with AT&T perhaps will
provide some information for the officials who are preparing this
proposal? Just wondering.
Mr. Stefanson: Rural development, another one of the
departments I do not think I referred to, is also represented on this
committee, and I believe that is who the contract is with that the member is referring
to. Absolutely, that might well be a
resource that is brought to the table in terms of whatever information they
have garnered from work being done in that department, because the department
is represented as part of that committee and the initiative is being led by our
Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) in terms of the entire
review in this whole area, appropriately so.
Mr. Plohman: Oh, I see.
So the minister here as the minister responsible for an infrastructure
program is not the lead minister on this aspect of the $50 million. It is just one of the projects under the
infrastructure program, but he is not the lead minister for that project. Is that correct?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I will try to
make this clear for the member, that on the infrastructure agreement I am the
lead minister and ultimately have responsibility for reaching agreement on the
allocations and the projects under that, but within individual projects,
obviously we draw on the best expertise possible within our government, whether
it is at the ministerial level or at the departmental level or whatever level
in terms of work being done on individual initiatives. That is the case in this project, not
dissimilar from some other projects that we might be working on, but when it
comes to reaching agreement with the other levels of government or the federal
government as it relates to these projects, yes, I have the final
responsibility and I am the lead minister.
Mr. Plohman: Well, I will not pursue this too much
further, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, but I think as the lead minister
responsible for $15 million of the taxpayers' dollars and allocated for this
particular purpose, the minister would want to have access directly to the reports
that are being done that will contribute to the final solution for the
electronic highway in the province. As
such, I am sure that if the minister wanted to be completely forthcoming with
the committee at this, and open with this committee, he probably would
acknowledge that he will be receiving that report as part of his functions as
minister responsible for infrastructure.
If he does not have it at this point, I cannot blame him for not
discussing it. But if he has it, I would
think that it would be incumbent upon the
minister to either share a copy of that report or a summary of it with
the committee.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I can assure
the member that at the appropriate time I will have all of the information
deemed necessary and adequate for us to make a final decision and to negotiate
appropriately on behalf of the province and the taxpayers of Manitoba.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister has talked about the
appropriate time, and perhaps he can give us a bit of a time line, in closing
on this issue, as to what he believes will be the time line for finalizing this
project.
It is okay. I think
the minister can feel quite comfortable that we will keep it a secret here in
this committee, and if he wants to share it here with us now, I think that
would be appreciated, and we will ensure that we do not contribute in any way
to maybe upsetting the apple cart for the minister in terms of the
announcements and what might be happening.
This is a legitimate role for the legislative committee, such as we are.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know that
the member for Dauphin would keep this to himself, but whenever we put out
dates then of course that becomes a target that as they approach we get asked
questions, and once they are there, if we do not reach that date people are
wondering why.
It is a high priority, as I indicated. It is being worked on probably as we speak,
and we will be receiving it in due course, but it is something we will receive
in the not‑too‑distant future, and at the appropriate time we will
share whatever information is deemed appropriate as well with all members.
Mr. Plohman: I really do not want to pursue this any
further. Just a matter of weeks then or‑‑
An Honourable Member: Drop it.
* (1650)
Mr. Plohman: If the member says drop it, I will continue
for hours. Does the minister expect that
we are talking about days, weeks or months?
Which would he categorize it as?
I would like to know whether we are going to get this by, say, the
middle of July, within the next month‑‑I would say that is weeks‑‑or
is it going to be a lot longer? Are we
talking about something that is much more complicated than we might think at
this point, in terms of finalizing?
Mr. Stefanson: I have outlined this is a priority for us, I
have outlined the time constraints around utilization of infrastructure money,
and we expect that report soon.
Mr. Lamoureux: I would just like to get that copy, the
updated list in terms of what projects have been approved. The minister had indicated that he would have
that.
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we will
provide that as indicated.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Resolution
27.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $23,890,000 for Other Appropriations, Canada‑Manitoba
Infrastructure Program‑‑Capital, for the fiscal year ending the
31st day of March, 1995.
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS AND OTHER PAYMENTS
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I refer you now to
page 46 in the Estimates book.
Does the honourable minister have an opening statement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): No, I do not. They are self‑explanatory, I believe.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Does the critic for
the official opposition party have an opening statement? None from the critic of the second opposition
party? Any questions?
Item 6.1.1. Employee Benefits and Other Payments (a) Civil
Service Superannuation Plan $32,377,500‑‑pass; (b) Canada Pension
Plan $12,991,900‑‑pass; (c) Civil Service Group Life Insurance
$1,965,000‑‑pass; 1.(d) Workers' Compensation Board (1) Assessments
re: Accidents to Government Employees $3,090,200‑‑pass; (2) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriation ($2,794,200).
1.(e) Unemployment Insurance Plan $24,169,600‑‑pass;
(f) Dental Plan $5,096,700‑‑pass; (g) Long Term Disability Plan
$1,682,300‑‑pass; (h) Ambulance and Hospital Semi‑Private
Plan $284,000‑‑pass; (j) Levy for Health and Post‑Secondary
Education $15,115,900‑‑pass; (k) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($61,305,400).
Resolution 6.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$32,673,500 for Employee Benefits and Other Payments for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1995.
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and
General Salary Increases
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Page 152: Item 27.6.6. Internal Reform, Workforce
Adjustment and General Salary Increases.
Are there any opening statements?
The honourable minister. No, no
opening statements? Any questions?
Item 6.(a) Internal Reform and Workforce Adjustment
$5,000,000.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Just one question. The Internal Reform and Workforce Adjustment,
is that still part of the process of decentralization? What else is included in this?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, no. It relates more to
issues around the budget. I guess a good
example would be the Voluntary Separation Incentive Plan for employees, if
those funds cannot be found within individual departments there is the
opportunity to take them from this funding source.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Item 6.(a) Internal
Reform and Workforce Adjustment $5,000,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 27.6:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$5,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Internal Reform, Workforce Adjustment and
General Salary Increases $5,000,000 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1995.
CANADA‑MANITOBA ENABLING VOTE
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Page 148, Canada‑Manitoba
Enabling Vote.
Are there any opening statements?
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): No opening
statements.
26.1, Item 1.(a) Partnership Agreement in Tourism (1)
Operating $64,800‑‑pass; (2) Capital $230,000‑‑pass.
1.(b) Winnipeg Development Agreement (1) Operating
$1,000,000‑‑pass; (2) Capital $1,000,000‑‑pass.
1.(c) Agreement on Agricultural Sustainability (1)
Operating $389,000‑‑pass; (2) Capital $66,000‑‑pass.
1.(d) Partnership Agreement on Municipal Water
Infrastructure ‑ Capital $880,000‑‑pass.
1.(e) Communications Technology Research and Industry
Development Agreement ‑ Operating $259,000‑‑pass.
1.(f) Partnership Agreement in Forestry ‑ Operating
$656,400‑‑pass.
1.(g) Mineral Development Agreement ‑ Operating
$190,200‑‑pass.
1.(h) General Agreement on the Promotion of Official
Languages ‑ Operating $200,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 26.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$4,935,400 for Canada‑Manitoba Enabling Vote, for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1995.
OTHER APPROPRIATIONS
Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred
by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Page 151, item 2.
Allowance for Losses and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other
Provincial Entities. Are there any
opening statements?
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): No opening
statements.
Resolution 27.2:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$350,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Losses and Expenditures
Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities $350,000, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Shall the resolution pass?
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): The $350,000 for the Manitoba Potash
Corporation, is that ongoing mineral lease obligations? Where does that come from?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson, that represents our estimated share of the operating costs for our
49 percent interest in the joint venture with Canamax.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Shall the resolution
pass?
An Honourable Member: Pass.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The resolution is
accordingly passed.
Allowance for Salary Accruals
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose: Page 151, 3.
Allowance for Salary Accruals.
Resolution 27.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$3,600,000 for Other Appropriations, Allowance for Salary Accruals $3,600,000,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Resolution 27.5:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$10,000,000 for Other Appropriations, Emergency Expenditures $10,000,000, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
The hour being 5 p.m., time for private members' hour. Committee rise.
An Honourable Member: No.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Sorry. The committee will reconvene at 8 p.m. with
interruption for private members' hour.
LABOUR
Madam Chairperson (Louise
Dacquay): 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 Labour.
We will be continuing to deal with the Estimates for the Department of
Labour. We are on item 1.(b)(1).
Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Item 1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Madam Chairperson, I am going to be asking
the minister some questions with respect to workplace safety. I am going to start off, I think, by looking
at an area that may be new for the minister.
I am not sure if there is very much going on in the department
with respect to this area, but I know that the government in Saskatchewan has
done a lot of work and they brought in a new policy, a harassment‑in‑the‑workplace
policy.
I will begin by asking the minister if there is any work
going on in the department with respect to having an amendment to the act so
that there will be a policy under Workplace Safety and Health that would
address harassment in the workplace as a workplace safety and health issue.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. Because this was started in the other section
and I am not familiar with what might have been agreed to previously, could I
establish if an agreement has been reached to just go back and forth and
discuss anything, because the member's question, in checking, is on page 118
which is Workplace Safety and Health, which is a separate department? I would like to know what the minister's
feeling is so that he would have appropriate staff to address specific
questions. My understanding is that
nothing has been passed at this point.
We are still under 1. Labour Executive (b) Executive Support.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Madam Chair, I have no problem dealing with
this area. I think in the last
discussions we really did not get into workplace safety and health issues in
any great detail. Given the amount of
hours available, I think we were operating on the basis of being able to move
throughout the department, trying to deal with some blocks, but dealing with as
many items as possible. I have no
problem dealing with this particular area.
Madam Chair, I would like the member for Radisson to please
be a little more specific when she defines harassment. Harassment is an extremely broad term that
can be open to a host of interpretations.
I have no difficulty in entertaining or getting into this particular
discussion, but I would ask her to please be a little more specific in defining
what she means by harassment in the workplace.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I would be pleased to do
that. I will follow from the definition
used by the amendment to the act in Saskatchewan that the government has
brought in just this past year, 1993. It
has a definition: harassment means any
objectionable conduct, comment or display by a person that is directed at a
worker, is made on the basis of race, creed, religion, colour, sex, sexual
orientation, marital status, family status, disability, physical size or
weight, age, nationality, ancestry or place of origin, and, thirdly,
constitutes a threat to the health or safety of the worker.
It then goes on to
outline a very specific procedure for the worker's rights, for employer
obligations, for worker obligations, procedures for how to file a complaint,
resolutions and corrective actions that can be taken, and outlines the framework
for ensuring confidentiality, and also has a section that deals with external
complaints. I would be pleased to supply
this to the minister.
I am quite concerned if this is something that is not being
dealt with in the government either through the Women's Directorate or the race
relations directorate‑‑the Multiculturalism Secretariat, I should
say, or any of the other appropriate places.
I think that we need to have this area looked at. It is not something new. There are a number of workplaces in the
province that have such a policy, and I would think that the government should
be looking at being the leader and setting the trend to ensure that we have
enshrined in legislation a policy on harassment that is going to protect all
workers in the province irrespective of where they are working.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, first of all, I say to the
member that our current human rights legislation in Manitoba does cover a lot
of the areas of which she speaks. There
have been recent discussions between the staff in Workplace Safety and Health
and the Manitoba Human Rights Commission staff to ensure that there is not a
wide gap or a gap between our two legislative frameworks to cover the specific
incidences that the member refers to.
I do say to the member that there is a difficulty anytime
one gets into what can be such subjective‑‑one clearly knows there
are going to be cases on one side where discriminatory comments or harassment
in the sense in which the Saskatchewan act defines it takes place and puts
people at jeopardy in the workplace because of the stress that it may cause or
the anxiety in the course of their employment.
We know those happen from time to time, and certainly that is one side
of it. On the other side of the coin, a
broad definition and the opportunity to use that as a tool given how subjective
the feeling or the description of what harassment can be opens up another side
to this that may not be productive.
So, when balancing things, obviously, in an area that is
open to such subjective interpretation, the current Manitoba human rights
scheme where you have people who deal with this on a regular basis is probably
the right vehicle with which to address the difficulty. I appreciate where the member is coming from
on this particular matter, but, as I have outlined it is one in which we have,
as a province, dealt through our human rights legislation. We ensure that there is not a gap between our
workplace safety and health legislation and human rights legislation.
I do not know at this stage of the game if adopting the
Saskatchewan model would prove a more effective means of dealing with the truly
legitimate cases that do arise from time to time.
* (1430)
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b)‑‑
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I will be asking questions
in this area for approximately an hour, I would think. Okay?
Thank you.
I find a number of the things the minister has just said
debatable. I think this is not a
subjective area. There are very clear definitions
of harassment. This is not to be dealt
with as personality problems as it often is in workplaces. This is not to be dealt with just as a human
rights issue. We all know that the Human
Rights Commission is backlogged and has a huge difficulty in dealing with these
issues. It depends too on having
adequate committees set up in the workplaces and is related to the Workplace
Safety and Health committee regulation that the minister is hesitant to bring
forth and enforce. I think this area is
groundbreaking perhaps to the minister, but there are many of us who have
worked in this area for quite some time and we know very clearly what
harassment is and we can define it very clearly for the minister.
I would ask if he will consider having this government
start to devote some time to looking at what other provinces, particularly
Saskatchewan, are doing in this area and if he will look at the benefits to a
variety of workers who are discriminated against in their workplace on a daily
basis.
I would suggest to the minister that this is not something
that occurs from time to time but is something that occurs every day in this
province to a number of groups from different kinds of backgrounds and with
what often are stereotyped attributes that the policy is designed to protect
them from having their safety and health compromised in the workplace. It is designed to prevent them from having
their work environment and their ability to do their work jeopardized by people
who have certain attitudes that are not in keeping with our human rights or not
in keeping with a notion of fair and equal treatment in the workplace. This could be from employer to employee. It can be from employee to employee. I know also that it is a big problem in the
schools, that we need to look in that area as well.
I would ask the minister not to continue looking at this
simply as a human rights issue, that this is a workplace safety issue, because
a number of people do have their ability to perform their job affected and they
do have their health affected and the entire health of a workplace environment
I would also say is affected. Everyone's
environment is affected even when there is one individual who continues to
treat even one other person in the workplace in a discriminatory and harassing
fashion.
I would just ask if the minister would consider that this
is something his department should be looking at, that this is an area that
deserves some serious consideration, that we have a number of areas in the
provincial government, I have mentioned two of them already, the Multicultural
Secretariat, we have had the Manitoba Intercultural Council, which has also
made recommendations in this area. We
have had the Status of Women committee.
I know there are a number of serious concerns with respect
to young people who are being discriminated against in our workplaces
throughout the province. I have had many
meetings with young people throughout the province who are continually not
given appropriate holiday pay. They are
not given appropriate notice when they have to be called to work. They are not given appropriate notice when
they are having their employment terminated, and I would suggest that all of
this is based on the idea that young people are able to be treated in a different
way than adults in the workplace.
I think a lot of young people do not know the legislation
and the regulations there to protect them in the same way that adults do. I think we have to give serious attention to
the way that many young people are suffering often dual discrimination or dual
harassment in their workplaces because they are often aboriginal and young,
disabled and young, from another racial background and young or another
religious background and young, and may for example be short shifted because
they cannot work on certain days because of their religious beliefs.
I mean, this does raise a serious number of concerns, and I
think it will go a long way to educating the public if we do have a policy and
a regulation, amendment to the act in fact, that would make clear to people
that harassment is not acceptable, that it is not something that is subjective,
that it can clearly be defined and that it can clearly be addressed. We have to put procedures in place that are
going to do that and make that known to the public so that they can, in fact,
protect themselves, so that they can, in fact, have equality of opportunity in
our workforce.
So I would ask the minister if he would respond favourably
to my request to have the department begin to look closely at this area?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, first of all with respect to the
comments made by the member about young people, or any people not being aware
of what their rights or obligations are with respect to employment standards
legislation, this department in the last few years has taken a great deal of
effort to put into plain language in readable form a pamphlet outlining
people's rights and obligations in employment situations.
We have made a big effort, a huge effort, unprecedented in the
history of the Ministry of Labour, to disseminate information across this
province so people know what they are entitled to in their places of work.
We have initiated a major effort in the multicultural
community where we have gone into a number of communities, and Mr. McFarlane
from Employment Standards will be joining us in just a few moments with a
complete list of the communities that we have involved to date. I can tell the member, I myself have spoken
to the Sikh community at an employment standards seminar that was held.
We have translated employment standards brochures into a
variety of languages to ensure that they are available to as many people as
possible. So I would say to her that we
have gone to greater lengths than any government before to disseminate
information to people across this province.
We have even included in our school curriculum employment standards
information as to the rights and obligations of both employees and employers.
I say to her that a great effort is underway to ensure that
all Manitobans, whatever their background, whatever their race, whatever their
language, are aware of their rights and obligations under our employment
standards legislation. She may snicker
at that, but I can tell her that her party, while in government, made no effort
in this regard. So we have certainly
moved very strong.
With respect to her general question, I have to disagree
with some of the premises on which she has based her statement. Not disagree in the sense that‑‑I
certainly recognize there are cases of discrimination in the workplace in the
province, but she should not underscore the other side of that coin, which is
the misuse of the term "harassment," by many to deal with
relationships between co‑workers and supervisors in the workplace.
I can tell the member from my own experience as a minister
that on at least two occasions in the last three years, our department, or areas
of the department for which I am responsible, or the Civil Service Commission,
have had cases come forward where the term "harassment" was used, a
person had been harassed and discriminated against because of a variety of
reasons, which upon investigation proved not to be the case.
* (1440)
In fact, in one particular incident it was a bad work habit
actually which was now coming under scrutiny.
Upon that time the charge of harassment was made against the
supervisor. My former deputy, Mrs.
Roberta Ellis‑Grunfeld, investigated that particular matter and came to
the conclusion very clearly that the so‑called harassment was, quite
frankly, a ruse to hide a bad work ethic, a bad work record, and that
individual was taking the offensive as they felt the ring was closing around
them that might have resulted in their own dismissal.
I say to the member, it does happen. To say it does not is both naive and I think
a disservice to those people who legitimately face a harassing situation in the
workplace. I say to the member that we
are certainly cognizant of those legitimate cases, that they do exist. I am not naive to believe that they do not
exist. Where that is best dealt with is
really the issue.
I say to the member very clearly that in our current
legislative regime in Manitoba, it is dealt with under the Manitoba human
rights legislation. If she asks me if it
is my intention to make this area a priority within the planning of our
department, with the caveat of course that we deal with this matter with the
Human Rights Commission and that we have contact to ensure that we do not have
a gap, I would say to her, with that caveat, no, it is not my intention to make
it a priority. The priority of this
department, quite frankly, is to address areas where the health and safety of
people in the workplace are most at risk‑‑and I underline to the
member, most.
I can tell her, if she looks at statistics, for example,
where we have our biggest problem in the workplace with challenges or threats
to the health and safety of people in the workplace is not, quite frankly, in
the area of harassment.
I would say to the member as well that this has not been an
issue that has been raised with us, or a request that has been raised with us
by any of the labour organizations in the province like the Manitoba Federation
of Labour or the Canadian Federation of Labour.
It has not been raised by any of my advisory committees as a pressing
issue. The only person who has raised it
to date has been the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli). I respect that. Someone always has to be first. It would not be identified as a priority by
any of the groups that this department serves or that make recommendation to
me.
I would tell the member for Radisson, because she asks to
make harassment a priority, that the priorities in our department, the areas
where we have the greatest threat to health and safety of workers and one that
comes to mind very, very quickly is in the logging industry where we have made
some tremendous strides in the last while to reduce accidents. I am very proud to say that the Abitibi‑Price
company which operates out of my constituency, for example, has now gone on to
well over a million person‑days of work in the woodlands division without
a time loss. That came about after
tremendous effort of their workplace safety and health committee.
In the remainder of the industry or much of the industry,
particularly with small operators, that is not the case. That area has our highest, our most severe
accidents in Manitoba. We are in the
process with the quota holders of addressing that particular area, and that
will demand a fairly high priority in our department over the next while.
[interjection]
The member spoke of priorities, and I am outlining to her
what the priorities of our department are.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: I just want to clarify for the minister that
I did not use the word "priority."
I asked if he would consider looking at this in the department. I want to just ask, Madam Chair, if you would
ask the minister to keep his comments brief.
We have a number of areas to cover under this topic, and I would ask if
the minister would just answer my questions to the point. When I want to ask questions with respect to
the logging industry, I will do that. I
would just ask if he would put remarks to the point and answer the questions
briefly.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, long questions get long
responses, because I think as minister I have an obligation to put into context
for anyone who would read the proceedings of this committee the reason why that
would not be a priority within our department.
On its own, that could certainly be misinterpreted. I would want it to be judged in its proper context
of what the priorities are in Workplace Safety and Health.
As I mentioned, logging is one. Certainly another area in which we have had
the highest number of fatalities in any industry is agriculture. That will continue to be a priority, although
it is very difficult to develop a regulatory scheme for agriculture. We have also mining, fabrication industries,
a new emerging particular area in workplace safety and health and of course
construction. Those remain our priority
areas and will, under this government's leadership, continue to be until we
have a significant reduction in those areas.
In some areas, we are starting to see that already.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I would start off by
suggesting to the minister that if there are in fact instances where there is a
discrepancy or a disagreement with respect to a charge of harassment and there
are cases where that is being used as an inappropriate charge, then I would
suggest that it is even a greater reason why we should have such an amendment
to the Workplace Safety and Health legislation so that we can protect people in
the workplace so that it becomes very clear what harassment is and what it is
not, so that it becomes very clear what people do in their workplace when they
have a concern or what they believe is a charge and an experience in their
workplace which is harassment and is affecting their ability to perform their
duties.
I would suggest to the minister that if this has not come
up to him as a concern from the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee,
that the women's committee for one at the Manitoba Federation of Labour has
raised this numerous times with me. I
have participated in workshops on harassment with that committee, and there is
vast agreement that this is an area that affects a number of people's ability
to perform their job. I would suggest
that if we look at the reasons why people quit their jobs. If there are reasons why people are absent
from their workplaces, I think we would trace it back not only to safety issues
in terms of contamination, toxic materials or bad air quality and that kind of
thing, but I would say the pollution of harassment and sexism and racism and
that kind of toxic pollution in our workplaces.
I would ask the minister, as well, what kind of evaluation
has been done on the program to disseminate information to all these various
groups to ensure that they are aware of what their rights are in the workplace
so they are not being harassed or not suffering any of the other employment standards
that we have. Just because there are
pamphlets made‑‑I know that there are seven languages offering the
course on employment standards in the department‑‑but just because
governments do this I do not think the minister can make the assertion that
everyone in the province knows what their employment rights are in their
workplaces.
As I said earlier, I talk to people daily‑‑or
not daily, I used to talk to people daily when I did employment counselling‑‑but
I talk to people quite regularly who still have this as a very big concern,
that they really are not aware of what the legislation is. I commend the minister if he has done some
work in this area, but I would suggest with certain groups that there is much
much more work that needs to be done.
I do not want to belabour this too much. The minister has made it clear that he is not
interested in looking at legislation in this area under The Workplace Safety
and Health Act. It is something that I
and my party are very interested in. As
he said, I guess it would be groundbreaking.
I do not know of how many other provinces at this point are moving in
this direction, but we in Manitoba have been leaders before in labour
legislation under governments, particularly New Democratic governments.
I think that there are a number of other areas that we
could look at, not just Workplace Safety and Health amendments or regulation
changes, but it affects Workers Compensation regulations. There are the changes in unemployment
insurance that affect this area. As
well, I have a very long list of nine areas that need attention to address
harassment in the workplace and to develop a comprehensive system that is going
to protect, as I said, all workers in the workplace, whether they be
supervisors and employers or workers because, as the minister alluded to, there
can be misappropriate charges.
* (1450)
I would suggest to the minister that 90 percent of the time
there are abuses of power which occur and it is often well founded when there
are charges. Usually, when there are
charges such as this, from my experience, there is something going on in the
workplace that is a cause for concern.
I would just maybe conclude by suggesting that the minister
not assume that, just because they have developed some materials for the
community, this is not a problematic area.
I do not know if he wants to elaborate on the process that they use to
work with the Human Rights Commission to ensure that, as he says, there are not
gaps. I know that between constituency
calls and meetings I have with community groups that there are concerns out
there, and all of it is not being dealt with through the Human Rights
Commission. There is such a backlog in
the Human Rights Commission right now that people do not see justice done
because it takes so long and a lot of them give up. We need a system in the workplace to handle
these kinds of problems that will utilize workplace safety committees and shop
stewards if they are there and a very clear process so that harassment can be
eliminated as a threat to the health and safety of workers in Manitoba.
There, if the minister does not want to respond to that
anymore, I can go into a new area.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, first of all, the member had
mentioned she had spoken with the women's committee of the Manitoba Federation
of Labour, then I would advise them to ensure that becomes an issue for the
Manitoba Federation of Labour as a whole to pursue through the various advisory
committees. To date, that has not been
the case, so I offer that advice.
With respect to the dissemination of information, I am sure
the member would not, for a moment, want to suggest that at the drop of the hat
or a flick of the finger or the wave of a magic wand we would be able to reach
every Manitoban all at once and have every bit of information that was possible
in top of mind with every person and every workplace. The world does not work that way. There is certainly a lead time required in
continuing to get out information through the schools, through workplaces,
through our multicultural program, so that year after year as we continue to do
this the number of people who are aware of rights and obligations in the
employment situation grows and ultimately we are to be more and more effective.
I am pleased to say that under this administration we have
disseminated over 32,000 of our employment standards pamphlets in the province,
which is a fairly significant number. [interjection] Can you hear me better
now?
Ms. Cerilli: Could you speak up, please?
Mr. Praznik: All right.
We have disseminated 32,000 employment standards pamphlets
throughout the province to date and continue to do so. We have incorporated into the Skills for
Independent Living course in our public school system a segment on employment
standards rights and obligations from both the employer and employee
perspective. I am pleased to also table,
for both my critics, a copy of our video that is in school libraries throughout
the province talking about employment standards rights and obligations. Again, getting information out, particularly
dealing with young people, is so very important because they have parents. They are able to inform their parents, and
they also become aware as they become members of the workforce.
The difference primarily between the member for Radisson
(Ms. Cerilli) and myself on this issue is that I am yet to be convinced by her
or in our own discussions internally that the place to deal with the problems
she brings to the floor of this committee is in Workplace Safety and Health
legislation. The course to date has been
through the use of human rights legislation.
To put such a provision in our Workplace Safety and Health legislation,
if the right to refuse was made applicable to it, I think, could lead to a very
difficult situation, an inappropriate means of dealing with human rights issues
in the workplace.
Human rights legislation allows for remedies. Our legislation is not set up on the same
basis. It is to deal with the physical
health and safety situation in a workplace, with injury, accident,
illness. It is not to deal with issues
that are essentially human relations issues.
Those are very different. They
require, in my opinion, a very different means of dealing with them. That is not to say that in workplace safety
and health issues there is not a human relations aspect as well, but the
particular issue at hand becomes one that is much different from the attitudes
or beliefs of people and the way they view other people. I do not believe Workplace Safety and Health
legislation is the place to deal with the problem that the member outlines.
If some improved administrative procedures were needed in
human rights legislation, some other mechanisms to make that more efficient,
fair ball, that is certainly worth considering.
I would have a hard time finding a means to incorporate what she is
particularly requesting at the current time in our Workplace Safety and Health
legislation.
The one commitment I will make to her today is that we will
certainly keep our eye on Saskatchewan to see how theirs administratively works
out. Perhaps I am wrong. I would certainly be prepared to admit that
if I were. But from the best experience
I can gather from those in my department who advise me, who operate, administer
our current statute, this is an area that is probably best dealt with on their
advice to me, and I concur with it, under the current legislative regime of
human rights legislation. We have had
discussions with the Human Rights people about providing segments and
information when we do training courses on human rights alongside our Workplace
Safety and Health, and Employment Standards information, and we will continue
to do that.
To use the legislative scheme of The Workplace Safety and
Health Act to deal with human rights issues, which they are, is I think
stretching the framework of that legislation to the point where it could become
an administrative nightmare as opposed to an effective tool, which I believe
the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) is attempting to find to address a
problem.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, I think the point of
dispute here‑‑and I will not continue to debate with the
minister. I do not know if it is going
to lead anywhere. I think the point of
dispute is the fact that the minister insists that this is a human rights issue,
that harassment is merely a human rights issue.
What I am saying and proposing is that it is a workplace safety and
health issue. It does affect people's
health. There are emotional and mental
effects. There are often physical
effects if there are certain practices undertaken that go along with the
harassment that can occur.
As indicated by Saskatchewan's move to enshrine a policy in
legislation, I think it speaks very strongly that this an area that can be very
effectively dealt with as a workplace safety and health issue. I am sure there are policies like this in
Europe, in certain countries in other parts of the world. I would also think that it will take the onus
away from having an organization like the Human Rights Commission deal with the
vast huge number of complaints that do arise because it will be dealt with at
the workplace level by the employees who are involved. I think that kind of decentralized approach
can assist people in having justice occur and having their workplace made safe
and healthy more effectively than what currently exists.
In his previous answer, the minister referenced the
advisory council on Workplace Safety and Health. I would like to ask the minister if he can
tell the committee the last time that he met with this advisory committee and
the number of recommendations and what those recommendations have been that
have come forward to the minister from his advisory council on Workplace Safety
and Health?
* (1500)
Mr. Praznik: I met with the committee, I believe it was a
little over a year ago. I look to my
staff, in which case I charged them with a host of particular areas that we
wanted their advice. Most regrettably to
date, they have not completed their work.
In some cases, they have not yet begun it on some of the particular
areas on which we, as a department, in reviewing areas we wanted their advice,
charge them.
The member will probably ask me about three particular
recommendations on regulations that have come from that particular
committee. Since that is an issue that
has been in Question Period and others, and an area I am sure she is interested
in, I would be more than pleased at this time to give her a status on those
particular three areas.
One particular regulation was the first‑aid
regulation which is a redrafting of our old first‑aid regulation which
was in need of a pretty significant redrafting because, I am sure, as the
member can appreciate, time has moved on in terms of what one requires in first
aid and what is available in technology. Just the simple fact that we have AIDS today
and other diseases requires a simple amendment such as rubber gloves, for
example, in first‑aid kits. That
came forward as a recommendation from me.
We sat down as a department, and we had some administrative
concerns with the way the regulation was drafted. We reworked those to make it, I think, better
administratively, and I am currently in the process of walking it through a
variety of cabinet committees including our regulatory review committee. I do not foresee a particular difficulty with
the regulation and hope to have it in place in a relatively short period of
time.
The second regulation was the hearing regulation. I must admit here that I had some
disappointment with the form in which this regulation came up from the advisory
committee. This was a reworking of our
hearing regulation to sort of update the regulation in terms of hearing
sensitivity and better information that is now available.
Regrettably, the committee produced a recommendation which
was very unreadable. In the spirit of
plain language, which I think all of us tend to embrace from time to time, I
have asked my department to redraft their current updated recommendation in a
form that was much easier to comprehend for the layperson looking at the
regulation and wanting to derive some knowledge out of it without being an
expert in the hearing area. So that has
taken some time to do. I look to my
director of the department; I believe our redrafts were taken back to the
committee for their review so that they were aware of what we had done in both
cases.
The third area is one of probably the greatest
disappointments to me because it is reflective of an attitude on the Safety and
Health Advisory Committee that gives me some concern as a legislator. It is one in which the chair and I have had
some discussion. I think we are going to
have to improve our processes, and that is in the area of the Workplace Safety
and Health Committee regulation.
* (1510)
The recommendation that came forward to me as minister was
one that I had quite a bit of discussion on.
In fact, I even attended a meeting of the Workplace Safety and Health
Committee of the Manitoba Federation of Labour to get to the point as to what
they were actually looking at doing, because the recommendation was somewhat
convoluted and quite frankly very difficult to administer. I had a great deal of concern on the part of
our staff as to how we would administer that particular regulation.
Consequently, we looked at how we could make it
administratively more effective. When we
dealt with the Department of Justice in putting it in a final form, what we
were advised was that the whole concept of what the committee was recommending
was ultra vires the statute. I, as
minister, will not knowingly bring forward a recommendation to cabinet to prove
a regulation that is not to my knowledge within the authority granted to me by
this Legislature to make such regulation.
We went back to the Workplace Safety and Health Committee with that
particular regulation, and they kind of had the attitude expressed to me by the
chair that, well, that is not our problem, just pass it. Well, I am sorry, that is my problem as a
legislator.
So we have sent it back with the guidance of the Department
of Justice to rework within the parameters of our authority, and should they
come forward with a recommendation that is not ultra vires of the statute, then
I will consider it. But what this episode
has demonstrated to me, and I think particularly the chair of that committee as
well, is that over the last decade or so of the existence of that committee, it
has not made good use of legal services of the Department of Justice so that we
can avoid these problems in advance.
In all cases, I would say those regulations have gone back
for quite a period of time in the development stage, going back many years,
over at least two governments, and it is regrettable that that particular
regulation was worked on and so much effort went into it without being fully
aware of the legislative authority of the act, but we hope to improve that
process for that committee. I am sure
that should answer the general question of the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli).
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chairperson, the minister in his answer
raises a number of things. I want to
start off with, though, going back to his comments about only meeting with them
a year ago. The concern is that the
minister is not taking this committee very seriously. The minister went on to describe that he has
requested certain issues for the committee to deal with, and it seems to me
that this is problematic because on the one hand the minister has said that
there are requests put forward to the advisory committee for them to look at
and make recommendations on, but then on the other hand, with respect to the
issue I just raised previously on harassment, the minister said that nothing
had come from the committee to him on that issue.
So it seems that the minister is putting the committee
between a rock and a hard place, where on the one hand he is saying they are
not bringing forward any issues, but then on the other hand he is telling them
only to make recommendations on issues that he wants to get their advice
on. So I would ask the minister, is this
in fact what is happening? Is not only
he not meeting with the committee more frequently than in over a year, and
also, is he only interested in hearing from the committee on certain issues
which he puts to the committee to make recommendations to?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, first of all, there is not
just the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee, and perhaps I was
unclear. That system does have a dual
approach that the committee can make recommendations in areas that its
stakeholder members feel are important to me, and I as minister can charge them
with issues that have come to me that I want to seek their advice. So there is a mutuality to it. I do not think it is a rock and a hard place. I think it is a good system.
The other committee, since this would involve her proposal
of legislative change, as opposed to regulatory change, would be the Labour
Management Review Committee which the Manitoba Federation of Labour president
chairs as Labour caucus chair. So that
is a legislative change. That is an area
where from time to time as we review statutes, that area, that committee would
make recommendations. So that is another
avenue by which that can be explored.
I do take, Madam Chairperson, some umbrage with the comment
that I am not interested or do not take these matters seriously. I take them very, very seriously. In fact, one of the objectives that I have
made for this department is to have a very significant reduction in our accident
rate over the next number of years. I am
pleased to say, as I look at the number, that the number of accidents, the time‑loss
claims for example per thousand workers, has gone down very significantly from
a high in about 1985‑86 of almost 50 time‑loss claims per 1,000
workers now to just about 30. So we have
had a major dramatic decline in the accident rate in this province over the
last few years.
* (1510)
Now I am not so bold as to take or my department to take
entire credit for that. There are a host
of factors. One has been the recession,
quite frankly, which has, to some degree, made people I think a little more
serious about their workplace for the good.
We have also had a major initiative because of our changes to the
Workers Compensation scheme where we have provided for a merit and surcharge
system. That has made a big effort in
making safety pay. So we have taken
safety very seriously.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: Again, just a point of order with respect to
process. I appreciate the minister
giving me this information. I intend to
ask questions on that momentarily. Right
now I just want to deal with the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee. So I would again ask the minister if he would
just answer the questions, and we will move along a lot more quickly because we
are nearing the end of the Estimates time.
Madam Chairperson: The honourable member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli) does not have a point of order.
It is clearly a dispute over the facts.
* * *
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, the member for Radisson
implied that I was not interested in workplace safety and health issues. I wanted to just demonstrate to her that we
are very serious about it, that, as a minister, I am very concerned about it,
and that we have put great efforts in the last number of years to reduce
workplace accidents in our province.
That is what I was endeavouring to demonstrate to the member, that the
proof is in the pudding. I was not so
bold as to say that all of that reduction has been because of the work of
myself or this department, but a number of factors, and that is what I was
attempting to outline to the member.
So I am pleased to say that the Workplace Safety and Health
Advisory Committee plays a role in that process. Some of the areas that I have charged them
with that the member may be particularly interested to know is in the whole
area of school safety because we have had a number of issues raised in terms of
our legislative scheme and the applicability of The Workplace Safety and Health
Act to schools because teachers are in a very difficult situation. Are they employees or employers? They are certainly employees with respect to
the management of the school, but what are they in relation to the students in
the school, and the current scheme of the act did not quite apply to the
school. So we had asked for some advice
of that committee through a subcommittee on how we could restructure to better
suit the school scenario, for example.
There was also the area I believe of agriculture safety and
health that we were looking at their advice, and a host of other issues. So it is an ongoing process. It is a slow process given the fact that
virtually everyone on that committee is a volunteer who gives of their time. So it is a workable committee. I do take it very seriously, and we are
attempting to improve some of the problems in that process such as our
relationship with the Department of Justice so that we are doing things that
are within the authority of the statute.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister provide me with a list of
the recommendations made from the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory
Committee and what follow‑up action the minister has taken on each of
those recommendations?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, three of those issues I
have just outlined to the member, which she can certainly read in Hansard. There are two others that come to mind that I
am prepared to report on today. One is
the area of ROPs, rollover protection, and that was a regulatory recommendation
for ROPs, as we call it, on equipment, on heavy equipment, that I took forward
to cabinet and cabinet approved three or four years ago, I believe.
We did have one problem that was raised with it which was
an interesting one. One of the industries
involved complained about the implementation schedule, yet they had a
representative on the committee that agreed to it, and we would not change that
without the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee recommending a
change. They reviewed the matter and did
not recommend a change to me which I certainly accepted.
The other issue in which the Workplace Safety and Health
Committee has given me some advice is in the area of ticketing, where the
committee has recommended ticketing in the construction sector. That is a very, very difficult issue to which
I have not yet responded for obvious reasons because it does remove a
management function in the workplace.
That is, that if a worker is in violation of The Workplace Safety and
Health Act, they are not wearing a hard hat, for example, then our department
would have the power to come in and ticket them and levy a fine on them for not
following the rules of The Workplace Safety and Health Act.
Now that sounds innocent enough in its form, but what it
does do is take away the responsibility from the employer for that worksite
because if the employee continues to not want to wear the helmet for example
and pays the tickets, we then should have no ability to go after the employer
because the employer has lost the responsibility for that violation. Under the current scheme, if that person was
not wearing a hard hat, we would issue an order on the employer, and if the
employee continued to not want to wear the helmet for example, then the
employer would fire the employee and use that management function. So the use of ticketing separates a
management function that probably reduces the ability to go after an employer
who has ultimate control over that worksite to enforce Workplace Safety and
Health legislation.
So I should point out to the member as well that the
Manitoba Federation of Labour opposes ticketing of workers. So I quite frankly have not responded to this
particular issue. I am still mulling it
over, but it is not an issue that we have viewed as particularly needed at this
time to deal with problems in the construction industry. But that is a recommendation I do have from
the committee. That would be the list of
five.
Ms. Cerilli: Has the committee made any recommendations
with respect to the report on discriminatory action that, as I understand it,
was completed in the department April 27, 1994?
Has the minister had any contact with any members of the advisory
committee with respect to this report which would have outlined how the
division should deal with discriminatory actions, and can he explain where this
report is, what the status of releasing the report is, why has it not been
released up till this date, and when can we expect to have a look at this very
significant report?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, first of all, the issue
that the member speaks of is not one that was initiated by or in which the
Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee has been involved. It has been an internal review of the
department on how people who do raise workplace safety and health issues are
ultimately dealt with by their employer if there is some punishment or some
adverse result to them having raised the matter and brought forward the
particular issue.
It is one that we are very, very concerned about because it
is a potential weak spot in our whole scheme.
If people come forward with complaints‑‑and I have to tell
the member from time to time I have had people call me at the office of my home
to raise particular complaints, and we have been very careful in sending in
inspectors to look at a particular worksite because we did not want to see any
retribution on the person who has raised the issue.
We internally have not completed that review yet. One of the things that the department is
attempting to do is interview a number of people who have been involved with
the department in raising issues and may have had some retribution.
By the way, I say this to the member, the remedy that has
been there has been taking the matter to the Labour Board, which has the power
to order reinstatement and a host of other things and remedy. So we internally are checking on how strong
that system currently works and where weaknesses are in it, if any. I am sure, like any system, there are
some. So it is not a particular matter
that I have taken to the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee or that
it is involved in. That is an internal
administrative matter.
When the report has been completed, I may choose to do
that, if there is a value to be had in taking it to them.
Ms. Cerilli: I thought that the report was completed in
April. What is the delay in completing
it, if it has not been completed? What
is the action plan or time line for completing it? When can we expect it to be released to the
public?
Mr. Praznik: I would just caution the member for Radisson
on her sources of information. Sometimes
when we have sources provide us with information, they are not always
complete. I appreciate this is the time
to raise the matters and find out if that information is complete or not.
I am advised by the director of my department, who is in
charge of that particular report, that the first phase was completed. The second phase is to conduct the
interviews, and that will be ongoing. So
there is no delay in the completion of the report. It is one we have initiated internally. It is one I as minister want to have done,
that I welcome.
When it has been completed, when the interview part has
been completed, I will have a chance, with my director and my deputy minister,
to review that particular area and see if there are things that we can do if we
have problems and how we are going to correct them.
So I am looking forward to the completion of it, but I am
sure the member's source has implied that because the first stage has been
completed, the entire report has been completed. I advise her today, as I have been advised,
that is not the case.
* (1520)
Ms. Cerilli: I am kind of uncomfortable with the
minister's answer, sort of inferring that I have some sources. I can assure the minister that I have ongoing
contacts with a variety of people in the labour movement. I do not know how they get their information,
but I would just suggest to the minister that he answer the question, and if he
wants to caution me, that is really not my intent with asking the question.
I want to just get some clarification then when the report
will be completed and when we can expect that the report will be available for
review?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, I would hope that our staff
would have it completed by the end of the summer. Whether or not it goes to some external
review is dependent upon the contents of the report, and that is a decision I
will make with my deputy and my director of that department when the report is
completed.
Let me say very clearly, the report is being done by us
internally to determine if we have a problem in this area, what the extent of
the problem is and, if so, how do we fix it.
Depending on the nature of that report, it may involve a legislative
amendment, in which case we would take it to the Labour Management Review
Committee. It may require a regulatory
amendment, in which case we may consider seeking the advice of the Workplace
Safety and Health Advisory Committee or it may require some action that is so
clear and straightforward that we may not necessarily choose to go to a review
because simply we can deal with it internally.
When that is completed, sometime by the end of the summer,
we will then judge the next step after we know the contents of that report.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chair, in answer to one of his other
questions, the minister referenced the record of the government with respect to
a decline in statistics on workplace accidents.
I want to spend a little time in this area, because he has
referenced that there are possibly fewer workers, and we are experiencing
problems with employment, and that could be one of the reasons that we have
fewer injuries and accidents in workplaces, but I would suggest that one of the
other reasons is that we are not doing the number of inspections that we used
to.
I have in front of me the annual report‑‑page
34 from '87‑88. It shows that the
inspections in 1986‑87 in the department were 5,913. The next year that dropped to 5,216. If we move along to 1991‑92, when we
are well within the mandate of the current government, we are down to 2,934
inspections by this division, and if we go to the next year, to '92‑93,
we are all the way down to 2,729 of Workplace Safety and Health inspections in
the province of Manitoba.
This is quite dramatic, in my opinion, and I am quite
concerned. I would hope the minister
would have some good explanation for why we are not having the level of
inspections that we had in the province back in the late '80s. I would suggest that this perhaps is one of
the reasons that we have had such a drop in the number of reported injuries and
that there is a relationship there. When
we have very active inspection programs, I think that there is going to be more
attention paid and seriousness taken with respect to workplace safety in the
province.
I would just ask the minister, maybe to start off with, to
give me some explanation of why the inspections in the province have dropped so
dramatically over the last few years.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, I would be pleased to get into
this issue, because my answer is the same as I have given last year, and
probably the year before, when the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) was my
critic and asked the same question in the House. The answer is a somewhat complex one, and I
am sure the member will be most interested in it. First of all, she is right in terms of the
number of inspections being conducted by the branch has declined
significantly. The quality of those
inspections, the places that we are inspecting, the method in which we are
determining where we inspect has changed dramatically. The member can clap her hands and say, the
quality, you know, is such a big issue.
But there is a difference.
When I took over this department I had a lot of questions
for the Workplace Safety and Health Branch, and it is very interesting. Back in those days of another regime when her
party was in power and we were doing 5,000‑some hundred inspections a
year, they were all at random by and large.
They were either from complaints, as we still do, we respond to
complaints, or they were significantly at random, people just checking, and we
issued thousands of orders. In fact, my
director told me at the time, I cannot recall the exact number, but there were
thousands of orders issued, many of which were for fire extinguishers, because
our Workplace Safety and Health officers would go into particular worksites not
because they had a complaint, just to go through. They would find nothing wrong except perhaps
the wrong fire extinguisher, and that is what they would issue an order, and
the statistics looked very, very good.
What we have done over the last number of years, and it has
been a progression that has involved both the Workers Compensation Board and
Workplace Safety and Health Branch, is to target our efforts so that we are
going to those places that have problems, those places that offer the greatest
risk. I would think any reasonable
person who was working out the administrative functions of a department would
want to do just that. One of the great benefits
of technology and of having both the Department of Labour and the Workers
Compensation Board housed under one minister is that we were able to
accommodate the flow of information from the Workers Comp Board on specific
worksites and employers to our Workplace Safety and Health Branch, and that
system gets better every year.
So where we see an increasing number of accidents as
reported to Workers Comp Board, we can send our people in to find out what is
going on, do we have a larger problem here.
We also have tended to target our most dangerous workplaces, which often
tend to be our larger industrial workplaces, construction being one for
example. We embarked on a major safety
program with the construction industry in Manitoba, which we are currently
talking about renewing for another period of time, which has meant we have had
to do less in the number of inspections, but the work that we are doing is
probably better and more precise and working with the construction industry in
improving the safety in their workplaces and reducing the number of accidents.
Logging is another area that comes to mind. Logging has had some very, very significant
injuries over the years. In the logging
industry when you have an accident it is not a small one, it is a major one,
and it is a very, very serious accident.
We have now‑‑in fact I chaired a meeting about a year ago
with the Quota Holders Association, because the real problem in the logging
industry, for example, has been in the small operators in the bush, and they
realized they had a problem and wanted to deal with it. As the member can appreciate, I as minister
and my director would need an army of Workplace Safety and Health officers to
be at every isolated logging site in the province of Manitoba.
We just physically could not do it. So by working with the Quota Holders Association,
we have managed, I think, or are managing now very effectively to disseminate
information to be able to know where people are so we can do spot checks,
because that industry has come to the recognition that they quite frankly
cannot afford their current accident rate, both in terms of its human cost and
its financial cost. So that will be
reflected in our inspections, but we are being far more effective in what we in
fact are doing.
* (1530)
The member may dispute the value of quality of what we are
doing versus quantity, but the proof is in the pudding. The fact of the matter is the accident rate
in Manitoba has declined significantly since the period in which he is talking,
and that is a fact.
There are a number of reasons for that, some of which are
out of the realm of this department, some of which are in. I cannot say specifically how much, but I
think we are being very effective in that particular course. We still have a lot of work to do. We have also made some changes internally in
the operations of the department. I
think our inspectors today have more time for their particular work.
One area I would just share with the member which
represented about half of our claims rate at the Workers Compensation Board,
the strains‑and‑sprains particular area. We have initiated some work in the ergonomics
area recognizing, in a preventative way, that a lot can be done to reduce that
area of injury, which is a major part, one of the most significant parts of our
workplace safety and health problems in the province.
Although the member may try to imply somehow that we care
less, I think we have given our staff in the department the ability to better
use their time and target their efforts.
We have provided them with the technology to better target their
efforts, the mandate to better target their efforts, and the result has been a
contribution to a significant reduction in the accident rate in our province.
On the current course that is what the facts are. The member may try to imply that something is
amiss, but I think I would much rather have it the way things are today than go
back to the days when we did untargeted inspections and, quite frankly, had a much
higher accident rate.
Ms. Cerilli: I would suggest the minister is taking a
mighty big leap of faith here. I think
that part of the problem we are having is failure in some cases to report, and
I have a number of concerns with what the minister is saying. I do not see why in this province we cannot
have quality and quantity, that we cannot have good inspections done in a large
cross section of workplaces.
I am also concerned with his comments with respect to them
being randomly done previously, and now somehow they are targeted and not
randomly done. One of the reasons I am
concerned about that, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) talks about them
being more scheduled, but I have talked to acquaintances or people that tell
me, perhaps working, for an example in the restaurant industry where they are
an employee there, and they know when the inspector is going to come. That would be a public health inspector. The owner of the restaurant does all sorts of
wonderful things to make sure that the workplace is shipshape for when the
inspector comes, and then lo and behold, once they pass the inspection things
slide back to a standard that is not up to snuff with respect to the standards
that we all expect, especially in an industry like the restaurant industry.
We know that this goes on in the community in terms of
inspections. We know also, flowing from
that, that there are similar problems with reporting problems in workplaces.
I wanted to go to another area, when I look at the annual
reports, that is also quite disconcerting.
In 1986‑87, there were 632 training and education sessions in the
department; that increased to 655 in '87‑88, and then took quite a nose
dive in '91‑92 to only 132 training sessions. Now the last number here for '92‑93 was
only 95 training sessions and education sessions offered.
I am wondering if this is somehow related to the policy
change to start charging for training sessions under the workplace safety and
health courses or if the minister has some other explanation for why the
department is not offering the same number of training courses that it used to
in the late '80s.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, I am somewhat disturbed by
the comments from the member for Radisson when she references City of Winnipeg
health inspectors. Her colleague
references Labour Canada inspections at the railway. By some comparison, she implies that our
inspectors in the Department of Labour of Manitoba are doing the same
thing. That would be unfair to our
staff. It is a policy of this department
and I am advised by my director is regularly followed, that we do not announce
our inspections. The member has not
brought forward any particular cases.
From time to time, it may happen.
The world is not perfect.
But, the member for Radisson, the member for Transcona have
not brought forward any cases where that has not been the case or that policy
has not been the case in our Department of Labour and she makes the implication
that because City of Winnipeg health inspectors announce their inspections and
do not do their job and because Labour Canada does not do its job, that the
Manitoba Department of Labour does not do its job either. I can tell her, to my knowledge, that is not
the case. If she has examples and would
like to bring them forward, I would be more than pleased to have a look at
them.
So I say to the members that it is unfair to our staff and
this department to make that kind of comment when you have no evidence
otherwise. If there is we would be
prepared to certainly look at it.
I would like to point out to the member with respect to the
numbers of training courses that when we started charging for them, there is
the old adage that anything that is free is not necessarily worth anything and
that by putting a value on it, that was a conscious decision. One has to remember that the Workplace Safety
and Health Branch of the department is entirely funded by a transfer from the
Workers Compensation Board, which is paid for entirely by employers in the
province. There was a sense that by
putting a value on training courses that the people who were most in need of
them would be the ones who would be paying for them as opposed to the general
rate base and they would be of greater value as opposed to just, I am taking
another course because it is there.
People would be taking courses because they wanted to and that was
representative of the fact they were prepared to pay something to take those
courses.
I am advised by my staff, who work regularly with a lot of
the other players in the safety and health area in our province, that there
have been a host of courses that are now being offered, a growth in the number
of courses that are being offered by the University of Manitoba, the Manitoba
Safety Council. I believe Rita Roeland
is their executive director, and I have had a chance to meet with her on a
number of occasions. They are playing a
more significant part in the province.
The Manitoba Federation of Labour educational area conducts a number of
courses in which we co‑operate. I
believe we even printed some pamphlets on occasion and provided them with some
advertising space, et cetera, for the work that they do, and there are others.
So although this department is not offering the same number
of courses and is now charging, there are a host of other players, very
legitimate players who have a lot to offer and can be, in my opinion, even more
relevant to the people taking their courses than we can sometimes be, who are
now doing that. So in terms of safety
and health education in the province, I do not have a specific number, but I
would suggest that we have a very active and vibrant area in this province in
educational workplace safety and health and that many, many Manitobans are
taking courses. I can tell her I know the
member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) was a speaker at the safety conference last
year. I was away, but it was the first
one I have missed.
* (1540)
There you have hundreds of workplace safety and health
people who are sent by their employers to attend that conference, a tremendous
display area of what is available in new technology and that has become a
bigger and bigger event every year and is one that just demonstrates, I think,
the vibrance of Manitoba employers and labour organizations and safety organizations
in working towards the joint goal of reducing accidents and the severity of
accidents in the workplace. The fact
that our statistics of per thousand workers are going down demonstrates that
this joint effort by so many in this province is bearing fruit.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Chair, the minister perhaps could
provide a list to show that what is happening is that there is a wider range of
courses being offered or a wider number of organizations offering courses and
that the total number of training opportunities in the province for workplace
safety and training education is not decreasing.
We know the tactic that is often used with respect to cross‑jurisdictional
service where it will be said that we do not want to duplicate service, but
what ends up happening is it is really a guise for cutbacks and we have
services decreased in a total number because one jurisdiction does not want to
duplicate or do what another jurisdiction was doing as well. What ends up happening is it is either
offloading or we end up losing the total number of training opportunities in
the province.
I would just like, perhaps not now because this could be a
fairly detailed or long list, but I would just ask if the minister would supply
me with a list of the variety of places in the province that are offering
workplace safety and health‑related training courses and educational
seminars to show that there has not, indeed, been a decrease in the number of
opportunities in the province.
I would like to move on to one more area where I want to
ask some questions before I pass the puck, as it were, over to my Liberal
colleague. I know she has a large amount
of expertise in this area.
I want to make reference to a question I asked the minister
back on April 28 when we were looking at the potential decrease in the staffing
and the reduction in the budget, maybe just for the record to note that the
budget has dropped significantly since '87‑88. There are tens of thousands of hours less
being worked in this area. When I asked
the minister to describe how the decrease in the budget for the division was
going to affect workplace safety and health in the province, he made reference
to some statistics.
I am somewhat concerned that these statistics are not
really related to workplace safety and health but rather to Workers
Compensation. I would like the minister
to see if he can clarify that. The
minister said he wanted to point out that since 1988 the number of accidents in
our province has decreased by nearly 30 percent from 53,000 in 1988 to 36,600
last year. Then he went on to say: What is even more important is the injury
rate has gone from 153 accidents per 1,000 workers to 110 out of a thousand in
1993.
I would just like for the minister to clarify, what is the
source for those statistics?
Mr. Praznik: The member for Radisson asks a host of
questions. I hope I can deal with them
all.
She mentions about the tactic of cross jurisdiction. There is also of course the tactic of
innuendo. I say to the member, really to
do justice, particularly, you have to look at all that is being offered, the
need that is there at any given time. It
is a changing and evolving process. We
have made great efforts in the last few years with the construction industry,
now with the logging industry, to address our highest risk areas in co‑operation
with those particular industries, and we are seeing a success. How that information is disseminated, how
courses are offered, the number of people attending courses varies with
situations. Simply looking at outright
numbers I do not think necessarily tells an accurate picture.
I would recommend though that she look at WorkSafe, which
is a publication of the department, and go back however long she wishes. Most courses that we are aware of are
advertised in that particular publication which is available. My department would be pleased to make it
available to her.
With respect to previous comments and statistics, I think
my point‑‑and again it is a point that I cannot stress enough. We can be criticized for our efforts here and
there, and no department or minister or director or staff always does
everything right. Goodness knows we
certainly do not. There are things that
we do not do as well as we would like or things perhaps we could do better. We keep trying to do things as well as we
can. The ultimate test of this department,
of all of the players in health and safety in Manitoba as to whether or not we
are achieving success is in our accident rate.
I believe the numbers that I quoted from‑‑and I
was looking for that particular sheet and I have not been able to locate it among
my papers. It was statistics prepared by
the Workers Compensation Board, who are the recipients of reported accidents in
the province. As the member should know,
the failure to report an accident is subject to a fine. We do not have evidence of a significant
number of cases where accidents are reported.
I know that is always the comment that comes up. If you want to dispute the statistics, well
they are not reported, but the decline has been significant enough that I think
even if there has been a small increase in accidents not reported it still does
not affect the general decrease in the accident rate in the province.
As I have said, there are a host of factors. Some of them are in the control of this
department and players, others are not.
The general rate of accidents in the province has been on a steady
decrease over the last number of years, not in just absolute terms but in terms
of the rate per thousand of workers or thousand hours worked.
The proof is in the pudding. The trend is a good one, and we have to
continue to work on that trend. That has
involved a lot of people in labour and management and the compensation board,
in workplace safety and health and all the various players and, of course, the
industry associations that we work with.
I think we are on the right track.
There is room for improvement.
There is always room for innovation.
There are some things we do not do as well as we should. There may be some things we are doing wrong
from time to time. The ultimate test by
which we are judged are those accident rates.
They are tending to fall, and that is an established fact from
reporting.
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Madam Chair, I have listened with interest
and have tried to determine from the minister's remarks what is now the new
criteria for targeting workplace inspections.
I have written down the words, the places which offer the greatest risk
with respect to increasing numbers of accidents and also targeting dangerous
workplaces.
Can the minister describe to me what kinds of accidents are
evaluated in terms of choosing the places that will be subject to inspection?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, first of all, we always
respond to complaints as the member well knows.
If we have a complaint about a workplace that requires an inspection by
a Workplace Safety and Health officer, we will always respond to that and that
includes complaints from individuals. That
includes complaints that come to us anonymously. That includes complaints through workplace
safety and health committees. So we
always respond to complaints. Depending
on the nature of the complaint, there is a certain amount of triaging of
complaints among staff. If the complaint
is for a minor issue and there is something more pressing that has to be done,
one has to give latitude to administrators to do that.
* (1550)
What the director and his staff do in terms of targeting is
they have available to them a number of sources of information, some new, that
did not exist a few years ago, the most important being our link with the
Workers Compensation Board. As the
member is probably aware from her work with the advisory council over the
years, until just a few years ago all we could obtain is sort of the industry
picture, that we had so many accidents in this particular industry. The Workplace Safety and Health Branch could
not get down to what employers and what worksites were having what kind of
accidents and injuries. They now, with
the computer link and agreement between the two, are very much able to glean
that information. So they are able to
better assess where we are having accidents, what type of industries and what
type of employers.
I say to the member one interesting bit of information she
will probably find a bit fascinating, as I did, is when we first started
looking at this we ran a list‑‑Mr. Farrell was the director at the
time‑‑of the best and the worst firms. We used a rating of two and a half
times. If you paid two and a half times
in compensation what your employees claimed, you were on the good list. If you had paid out two and a half times what
your rate was, you were on the bad list.
We had about 50 come up on each.
We just wanted to sort of compare.
It was interesting. There were
people in the same industry, competitors doing the same thing on the good list
and the bad list.
So it showed to us that you can have a safe workplace, that
it was not necessarily the type of industry that you were in that made your
place unsafe, it was how you ran it. So
with that kind of information, it has allowed us to do more targeting. So we have looked at industries that have had
high fatality rates, that had the severity of the type of injury, and that is
why we embarked on a special program with the construction industry and now are
doing it with the logging because they were both, in terms of severity and
fatalities, higher than most.
We also have managed to look at an area where we have a
large number of claims in the area of ergonomics that the member is familiar
with. That was an area that we have also
targeted in terms of proactive response to saying you can prevent these
injuries by doing these things and spending a lot of time in information and
dissemination of information and working with companies to improve their
situation. We have also‑‑and
I am just going through my notes here because I know the member is particularly
interested in it. Because we have hired
a chief occupational medical officer and we have one epidemiologist, we are
evaluating sector data to find out high accidents and severity in areas where
those people can be of influence to us, particularly in relation to toxic
substances in the workplace.
We look at risk, we look at factors where we have
accidents, injury and illness and we target, and it is an evolving process as
our data comes forward and identifies problem areas and as we have success in
resolving them once they are identified.
It is an evolving process, but what our goal is is to dedicate our
efforts and time to areas that have problems that are affecting workplace
safety and health and creating injuries and illness and spend our time in those
areas as opposed to just sort of a shotgun random approach that sometimes
produces results and sometimes does not.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, trying to get a specific answer
to my question, what percentage of inspections occur following a complaint or a
serious time loss accident?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, all I can offer is the
best guess of our director which would be about 30 percent across the
board. One has to appreciate it may vary
very much from industry sector to industry sector, et cetera. The 30 percent across the board probably is
not meaningful in an area of a specific problem or sector.
Ms. McCormick: I can then conclude that 70 percent of
inspections are prospective in nature oriented to ensuring compliance as
opposed to determining accident causation.
Mr. Praznik: The approximately 70 percent is accurate
across the board, but 30 percent of the work of the department is in the mining
sector and construction. There we have
very, very proactive so there it would be much higher than 70 percent of our
work, because the accident rates in those areas have been declining and we have
been very much involved in a proactive area in both mines and
construction. As I said, the general
numbers of a 30‑70 split are not accurate as you break them into sectors.
Ms. McCormick: Could I assume from what I have just been
told that the inspections done by the safety people in the sectoral‑based
safety initiatives such as the construction associations are included in as
inspections by the department?
Mr. Praznik: The member must bear with me as I am trying
to glean the specific information from my staff. We are talking about inspections and
investigations and field work, and particularly in mining, for example, we do
regular inspections in most mines across the province. That would not include the proactive work we
do with the association in developing or assisting them in developing safety
programs or the like. It would be the
times we actually do an inspection or an investigation on a worksite, and that
might be just to ensure things are going well.
I am getting some additional information, if the member will bear with
me.
Madam Chair, if this is help to the member for Osborne (Ms.
McCormick), the work that our staff would spend in working with those particular
groups like the construction and safety group or the logging group would not be
counted. Those would be our numbers for
inspection or investigation. I am
advised that about 30 percent of our inspection or investigatory work would be
in mining and construction.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, you referenced three regulatory
areas that I am interested in pursuing:
hearing conservation, the chemical safety through WHMIS and the
Workplace Health Hazard Regulation, and the ergonomics area.
Can you tell me, given that we estimate there are about
110,000 Manitoba workers who are exposed to noise in excess of the 85 decibels
which requires the implementation of a hearing conservation program, how many
annual reports of hearing conservation programs are filed with the department
in a year?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, I am advised that we have
several hundred filed. I wish I could be
more specific. I will commit my director
to get that specifically.
As the member knows, in the current hearing regulation there
is no specific requirement to file, but in the proposed regulation that we are
working through currently on hearing‑‑and I appreciate concerns
with the time it is taking to move that through. There have been, as I outlined earlier today,
difficulties in putting that into a form that was as useful and usable as
possible. That current regulation
includes a recommendation for a requirement to file those plans with the
COMO. There are of course some benefits
in doing that, I would probably understand, for Workers Compensation
Board. It is a useful improvement that I
would look forward to when we deal with the entire package of that hearing
regulation.
* (1600)
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, with respect to the WHMIS and
the Workplace Health Hazard Regulation, which controls the use of designated
substances in the workplace, can the minister advise the number of prevention
plans which would be on file as required by the Workplace Health Hazard
Regulation?
Mr. Praznik: As the member may be aware, there is no
requirement to file, so we have a few, I am advised, a specific number I cannot
give the member at this time but I will undertake for the director to provide
that to her.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, with respect to the ergonomics
initiative, can the minister advise the number of workplaces for which there
was either ergonomic assessment or the development of some kind of work design
or modification initiatives?
Mr. Praznik: Firstly, I am advised that there have been
about 30 workplaces where the department has been actively involved in the last
year in ergonomics improvement issues.
There are, of course, because of the conference that we held and the
general dissemination of information, a host of others, I am sure, who are
working in this particular area, and that must be one of the factors that is
contributing to the decline in our accident rate in the province.
The downside of this answer, Madam Chairperson, is it is
not as many workplaces as we hoped we will inevitably get to. The positive side is that we are probably one
of the only provinces in Canada today who have launched this type of
initiative, so I am advised. So we are a
bit of leaders in this particular issue as a proactive department, and we intend
to continue to be. I think we certainly
have a lot more work cut out for us in this area, and that is why, as I said
earlier in these proceedings, that the ergonomics area was certainly one of the
priorities of this department, this branch, over the next few years. Why we would not be getting into the human
rights area is because it was not, quite frankly, as high a priority.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, can the minister advise
me, what percentage of Workers Compensation Board claims are now related to
soft tissue injuries as compared to the percentage for trauma‑induced
injuries?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, I look for‑‑and
I do not say this in any way to put off the member's question, because it is an
excellent question. I just want to add
the caveat that when we get into the Workers Compensation Board, which is not
an item on this department, I will have for her exact specific numbers. So today I am giving her maybe perhaps some
generalities, and I only attach that caveat.
Mr. Farrell, my deputy minister, who was acting CEO at the
compensation board for a nine‑month period about a year ago, he and I
just conferring here are both under the impression that with some vagaries,
small variances, that by and large the accident rate was coming down generally
in most categories.
So based on the data we have been looking at, we are under
the belief that it has been, with a couple of exceptions, one being carpal
tunnel syndrome, a repetitive strain injuries area, which has been on the
increase, I believe, and also our fatalities in the agricultural sector.
Ms. McCormick: What I was trying to determine by this line
of questioning is, when the department is targeting those most dangerous
workplaces, is exposure to noise, exposure to chemicals and exposure to
ergonomic conditions giving rise to soft tissue injury‑‑are each of
these areas considered in determining risk, which then would cause the division
staff to want to pay more attention in those areas?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, the answer would be
yes. Certainly they fit into the risk
factors with a bit of an exception and that is in the ergonomics area. I cannot underscore enough that we are very much
on the leading edge in this particular area, and so our proactive efforts‑‑the
30 or so workplaces that we have gone into in this area‑‑have been
areas where we have had the co‑operation of all involved including the
Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee, the employers, the unions
representing the employees, the employees, to address these issues proactively
to deal with that particular risk.
In some ways, it is very much a trial as we see how this
works, and as we start to get positive results as we work our way through, then
we have very strong grounds for moving the program elsewhere. So the answer to the question is yes, with
that caveat that we are still very much in the developmental stage in
ergonomics‑‑not with our knowledge of ergonomics, but how we, as a
department, get involved and work these things through in a productive way that
is proactive and reduces injuries as a result of ergonomic issues.
It is new ground for us, and we are treading through it and
making some mistakes, I am sure, but learning a lot and hopefully be able to
see this program grow.
Ms. McCormick: The minister has raised the reapproval or
refunding of the sectoral‑based safety programs. I would like to know from the minister, what
criteria will be used in evaluating the success of the sectoral safety
programs?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, both of our agreements with the
construction industry and with the logging industry provide for review, I
believe, after three years, in which case our staff‑‑pardon me,
with the stakeholders involved‑‑will endeavour to determine whether
or not they have had an effect. If not,
why not; if so, what they are doing well.
I can say to the member one has to appreciate in these
things that in both cases the funders of this program are those particular
industries, so they have very much a vested interest in seeing some success for
the dollars spent. We certainly do not
have time to waste, so we want to see success.
I know I met recently with the construction industry group
who feels very, very strongly about renewing their particular program for the
last three years. Although I do not have
the specific numbers here, perhaps we can discuss them in the Workers
Compensation Annual Report review by a committee of this Legislature, but my
understanding is their numbers have shown a decline in accident and injury.
The logging industry:
We have just embarked on this in the last year, so if we are starting to
see some success‑‑you know, if we do not, we have to ask the
questions at the evaluation, why not, and is this the right approach?
* (1610)
Ms. McCormick: The minister has just said, we will have to
ask the questions at the evaluation. Is
there an evaluation criterion set out?
Will the evaluation be done including the Workplace Safety and Health
division representatives and the Workers Compensation representatives? Is there an intention to have an outside
evaluation? Will it be a program
audit? Will there be financial audits? I would like a little more detail on your
plans.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the specifics
that the member for Osborne is requesting.
Our concern from workplace safety and health will be on the safety
impact of those programs. Are they
effective in reducing risk, in reducing injury, in reducing severity of
injury? Those types of questions we have
to ask. The questions as to the audit,
financial effectiveness, et cetera, one has to appreciate that our investment
as a department in these programs is one of time and the experience of our
staff. The programs are paid for by
those particular sector groups, so they will, through their own chosen method
of financial evaluation, have to determine whether they are getting value for
money. The Workers Compensation Board,
who works with them, will also have to make that same determination and will
have the statistics and data on which that can be based.
One has to appreciate that the full cost of those programs,
even the time cost of this branch, are paid for by the employers of
Manitoba. So their interest is one of
certainly making sure that they are getting value for money in their program
areas.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chairperson, there have been some
concerns raised that an amount of money is being funnelled into things that are
not necessarily related to safety, for example, chargebacks for office and
administrative costs for social events, activities which are not necessarily
directly related to safety. Would it be
the responsibility solely of the industry executive, or would either Workers
Compensation Board or the safety and health division be interested in seeing
the amount of administrative versus program costs which are being incurred by
these programs?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, the member raises a
particular question. My staff were well
aware of the particular issue because I think it‑‑not in any way to
take away from a very legitimate question, but I understand that there was a
personnel matter involved in this program in which a particular individual was
let go by this program and that accusations, similar to the ones being voiced
by the member for Osborne, were also made at that time. I am advised that an audit did take place and
that the expenses that were part of the program were determined to be, in the
course of that audit, legitimate. There
was a chargeback, I understand, for the office space of the program to the
Winnipeg Construction Association, which was a legitimate cost in terms of
office space. There was not, to my
knowledge, a misuse or an adding on to the expenditures of things that were not
legitimately part of that program operation.
The member raises a particular concern. I guess it always proves one should be vigilant. These accusations can be made, and I would
gather that the parties who were part of those agreements, particularly in the
logging sector, as they get into it, will want to ensure that there is a proper
audit done to prove expenditure of money.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. McCormick: Does the minister have an indication, or
perhaps we could B/F this to the Workers Comp area. What is the take‑up rate by sector of
the number of employers who actually are participating in each of the sector‑based
programs?
Mr. Praznik: Of course, we have the greater Winnipeg
construction program, which is dealt with by the Workers Compensation
Board. The majority of their members, of
course, have to sign up to be part of the program. The exact number we will have for the member
in the Workers Compensation Estimates.
They would have that type of detail there.
Manitoba heavy construction, again, the majority; Prairie
Implement Manufacturers have a program for the Workers Compensation Board; and
the Manitoba Restaurant Association. In
each case, I think the Workers Comp Board requires a majority of each to be
part of it and to approve the extra assessment and to be part of the program.
The one that our department is dealing with specifically,
where we have taken the lead, has been with quota holders. The take‑up there, of people who are
involved, has been quite high, I cannot say all, but certainly approaching the
vast majority of quota holder, quota operators or logging operators in the
province.
Ms. McCormick: I want to switch gears now and ask him about
a few other areas. For example, I am
interested in learning about the participation of the Workplace Safety and
Health division on technical advisory committees for licences being issued
under the Department of Environment.
One example, of course, is Louisiana‑Pacific, where
the use of methylene diazocyanide and the presence of particulate matter in the
workplace is an area of potential exposure to employees.
Did the Workplace Safety and Health division participate on
the TAC reviewing the application of Louisiana‑Pacific prior to it going
forward to public consultation?
Mr. Praznik: Yes.
Ms. McCormick: I wanted also to ask some questions. I will review Hansard. I apologize for not being here at the
beginning. One of my children graduated
this afternoon from junior high and that took priority.
You have answered questions I understand on the hearing
conservation and noise control regulation on the status of the first‑aid
regulation and on ticketing in construction, but I am interested in knowing
what is the status of the industrial regulation?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Acting Chair, I can tell the member that
the industrial regulation is not one that, to my knowledge, has been provided
to me. I am advised that it is still
with the advisory council who have set up a subcommittee chaired by Barry
Seminow [phonetic] to review it and make recommendations to the larger
committee.
* (1620)
Ms. McCormick: Another area of concern is that the Workplace
Health Hazard Regulation still references the 1987‑88 issue of the
American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienist TLV books. In fact, I was just involved in a situation
in which the exposure levels found to be present in the workplace satisfied the
'87‑88 regulations but would not have satisfied the current regulations
were they adopted.
Can you tell me the status of the re‑evaluation, I
guess, of the OEL and the TLV exposure limits that are to be cited in the
regulation?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, I noticed the member said she
was involved in a particular situation.
I know, in a life outside of this Legislature, she is very active in
workplace safety and health issues, and this is a particular one that is
getting into the great technicality of the department that, quite frankly, I am
just conveying definitions to the member.
If it is involving a particular circumstance that she is
involved in, and I appreciate the technical issue here, I would be more than
pleased to invite her, whether it be in a professional capacity as representing
a client, or whether it be as a critic of the party, to meet with my staff to
discuss this. Quite frankly, on the very
technical issues of which she has raised, I am conveying information from my
staff to the member that has very little meaning to myself, who is not a
scientist, and act on the advice of others who do. I would be more than pleased to have her meet
with our particular staff to discuss that in detail if that is what she would like
to do.
Ms. McCormick: No. My
illustration was simply to point out that we have 1987‑88 TLVs in
place. Is there an intention to update
the Workplace Health Hazard Regulation to use a more current version of the TLV
regime?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Acting Chair, again on this very
technical area, in which this means very little to someone who is not from a
science background or an understanding of these particular issues, I must act
on the best advice of my staff. At this
time, I have no advice or no recommendation that a change to that regulation is
required.
Having said that, it is not my intention to recommend to my
cabinet colleagues that we amend that particular regulation.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Chair, the 1988 Workplace Health
Hazard Regulation contains a list of designated substances which was the best
information at the time with respect to carcinogens and respiratory
sensitizers. It has been the stated
intention of the division over the years to update the designated substances
list. Can the minister give me
information on what is the status of the review of the designated substances
list?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Acting Chair, I understand that it is
currently under review by our chief occupational medical officer, who will,
upon completing that review, come forward with recommendations through the
system to me as minister.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Chair, any idea of the time lines
of this initiative, when we could expect the COMO to report?
Mr. Praznik: No.
Ms. McCormick: Thank you.
I wanted to move off the Safety and Health division if this is all right
and move into just the general area of codes and practices.
The 1995 National Building Code is due out in this coming
year. Is it the minister's expectation
that the 1995 National Building and Fire Codes will be adopted quickly,
following their issue from Ottawa?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Acting Chair, as staff from the gallery
join us on this particular issue. It is
my honour to welcome back to active service Mr. John Matheson, who is the Fire
Commissioner of Manitoba. He will be
joining us very shortly. The reason why
I do that is that Mr. Matheson underwent very serious surgery last December and
was on a medical leave from the branch for quite a number of months, and I can
tell you that we are all very honoured and very pleased and very delighted to
have him back in active service as Fire Commissioner for the Province of
Manitoba.
With respect to the question the member is asking, I am not
going to give a commitment to the member today as to time frame. I recognize fully that there is a need, once
the recommendations come forward on a National Building Code for us to move
with some haste, because the industry out there wants to know what is
happening, but I from past experience can tell the member that what this
government as many others will not do is simply accept holus‑bolus the
recommendations coming forward without a review.
There has been some concern expressed in a variety of
sectors in construction that from time to time what works into the code are
specific product lines that are developed for reasons that may not have any
resemblance to risk. I, as a minister
responsible for those codes, always reserve the right to review the
recommendations of the national code committee and to work through in Manitoba
and take forward those that we believe are suitable to the specific needs of
our province. We do recognize that that
cannot be a long, drawn‑out process, so once the recommendations are
forwarded we will begin our own internal review of those particular codes and
make any changes that we believe are required in them, if such changes we
believe need to take place, and then we will pass them through in that form.
Ms. McCormick: I have an ancillary question in this area,
and it amazes me, having gone through Estimates in a number of departments
including Environment, and I have reviewed some of the information in the
Energy and Mines area. Certainly in
Natural Resources, we have a recurring theme of sustainable development. It surprised me that there was no mention of
sustainable development initiatives in the Department of Labour with reference
to codes.
Is there any work being done by the Department of Labour or
Department of Labour representatives with respect to looking at those areas in
which the retrofitting of old buildings and the construction of new buildings
can be done in an environmentally sustainable way?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Acting Chairperson,
first of all, for the edification of the member, the process of developing the
codes through the provinces to a national level and coming back to the
provinces involves hosts of advisory committees and representatives of various
associations that have an interest in construction, construction materials. There are many, many opportunities to put
forward new ways of doing things that are better than the ways they have been
done in the past or new particular products that are more sustainable.
One of the issues that I reserve as minister when the new
national code comes forward is the right to look at the recommendations that
are there because there may be some that prove not to be within the order of
sustainable development that we may not want to accept. So we certainly will consider that from a
Manitoba perspective.
One initiative that we are taking that I am very excited
about, and we have only had preliminary discussions to date with Grand Chief
Phil Fontaine, is the development of a remote building code, for lack of a
better name at this current time. That
would be a code that would take into account the use of natural materials,
particularly log construction, and for buildings that are suitable for isolated
or remote particular areas.
* (1630)
This particular initiative is one where we have just had very
preliminary discussions about doing it jointly with the Manitoba Assembly of
Chiefs and our department. They see it,
I believe, as being useful to stretch housing dollars in isolated remote
communities and, from our perspective, develop a code that would apply to
construction that could be used in many areas outside of the aboriginal
community in our province.
So in many ways, the principles of sustainable development
will certainly be part of that particular area.
It is not one we have announced, I guess we do not have an agreement on
today, but it is one we are exploring with the Manitoba Assembly of Chiefs as
we enter this whole area of self‑government. So her comment certainly fits in with that
initiative.
(Madam Chairperson in
the Chair)
McCormick: I just have one final area of questioning
before I am prepared to pass it back. We
have received several letters of concern, including one which was sent to
yourself, Mr. Minister, from the Manitoba Building and Construction Trades
Council, with respect to the great fanfare of the announcements of Louisiana‑Pacific
and the construction jobs that it would create.
From this letter it is apparent that there is great fear
that the project managers, being from outside of Manitoba, will be hiring roving
work crews and that in fact Manitoba's own skilled workforce will not benefit
from the construction of the Louisiana‑Pacific plant, should it get its
environmental licence.
Has the minister responded to the letter of May 30, and can
he give me some indication, if he has, of the nature of his response?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, the member has touched
upon the whole issue of Louisiana‑Pacific. I take it that in being concerned about
construction jobs, which this government is concerned about, being concerned
about the economic benefits that that project can bring to this province,
subject to the environmental review process, are a good thing, and I take it
from her question that the Liberal Party of Manitoba is going on record as
being supportive of this project and the efforts of this administration and the
people of Swan River to secure this very, very important project for the people
of our province.
Ms. McCormick: I am interested in getting the answer to my
question. Did the minister respond to
the May 30th letter, and what did he respond in answer to their request: We would request any information on planned
action by the government which may be proposed to protect construction jobs for
Manitoba trades people on the proposed construction of the new strand board
plant near Swan River.
Did the minister respond and did he give any indication of
what protection or encouragement the proponent would be given to employ
Manitoba trades people if the plant is built?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, first of all I would have to
check my correspondence if I have responded yet. If I have not, response is in the process of
being drafted, but I say to the honourable member, there is a host of issues
that she brings to this question. One of
them is freedom of movement between provinces.
If the member is taking the viewpoint of this particular group that has
written to me that there should not be a mobility to labour in this country,
that there should be a restriction on who can work on what site, as the
government of British Columbia is attempting to do currently in some of their
legislation, then one must also be prepared to see Manitobans shut out of other
work outside of our province.
So there is a very fundamental principle that has to be
addressed in the query that was made to me, and it has been the position of
this government, and I think for very good reason, that mobility, freedom of
mobility of labour across the country, is an important part of building
economic links across Canada and reducing our interprovincial trade barriers.
So if the member is supporting a position that we should
enact legislation, because currently we have no legislation that restricts who
can work on construction sites in Manitoba, if the member is suggesting we do
that, that would certainly be a major barrier and would result in, I am sure,
other provinces taking action against us to keep Manitoba workers out of
construction sites in other provinces.
I have to tell the member, I had a group, I believe it was
the elevator union, I cannot remember their official title, but they are the
people who build, install and repair elevators, and they raised with me the
number, for example, I think something like 70 percent of the work hours of
their members are now done outside the province of Manitoba. Again, this is a fundamental principle. What we do have in Manitoba, and we have had
for many years, is The Construction Industry Wages Act that sets a minimum wage
level in the construction industry which everyone must pay whether they be in
Manitoba or outside of Manitoba, so that employees could not come from other
provinces and be paid less than that minimum.
That is the way that the system has operated in Manitoba for a number of
years.
I can tell the member though that this government, within
the bounds of recognizing the importance of the principle of mobility of
labour, will work very hard with the Manitoba construction industry and very
hard with the local people, particularly in the subtrades, to ensure that they
have the ability to be competitive and to secure as much employment as possible
in the construction of that plant, should it receive the proper environmental
approvals to move ahead.
We are very much in favour of seeing Manitobans maximize
the construction jobs but within the principle that mobility of labour across
Canada is an important principle and not building up restrictive trade barriers
between provinces, that being an issue that we should avoid.
I would hope that the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick)
would clarify to this committee in her next question whether she in fact
supports the principle of mobility of labour in reducing trade barriers, or she
opposes that and would like to see restrictions on mobility of labour and the
construction of trade barriers across our country.
Ms. McCormick: Madam Chair, my understanding of the
Estimates process‑‑and I am very willing to grant that I am new at
this; this is the first year I have gone through it‑‑is that this
is the opportunity for us to question the minister of the department and the
department staff with respect to the duties and the activities of their
department.
I was asking a specific question about whether or not the
letter had been responded to. I also
wanted to pursue the consistency between the announcing of this project as good
for construction jobs and what appears to be a fear in the skilled trades area
that the construction jobs for the skilled trades will not in fact be to the
benefit of Manitoba workers. That was my
purpose in asking the question.
My position on this is not relevant to the Estimates
debate, and I would appreciate the minister's response.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, this is certainly an Estimates
debate, but this is a political place.
This is where people bring forward their points of view, and the member
for Osborne is the critic of the Liberal Party.
She asks me a question which is to determine some principles of policy
on this particular issue, yet, like Liberals everywhere, ducks indicating to us
what the Liberal Party position is. It
can only lead me to the conclusion that the member for Osborne, like many in
her party, will take the position of supporting that point of view when she is
in a room with people who want her to support that point of view and taking
another position when she is in another room with people opposed to it.
As I have said to her, there is a very fundamental issue
here of mobility of labour. The Louisiana‑Pacific
project, which was initiated by the people of Swan River through their economic
development group, should it receive the approval of the Clean Environment
Commission and Louisiana‑Pacific proceeds with that project, will bring
the opportunity to this province of thousands of workdays of construction. It will bring the opportunity to work, and it
will be up to Manitobans in the construction trades and the construction
industry to take advantage of that opportunity.
That means they will have to be competitive‑‑[interjection]
* (1640)
Well, the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) talks about
lawyers having a set fee schedule. I do
not see in this Legislature the power of legislative authority having set a fee
schedule for lawyers. Lawyers do not
have the power of law setting their fee schedule, and various lawyers charge
different rates, and they have to be competitive. I have not practised law with my own
practice, but I can tell the member for Transcona that rates can be very
competitive in the legal profession, and they vary depending on how much one
wants the work. In fact, all one has to
do is look at house transfers. I
remember when I started out as a young lawyer, you would get $400 or $500 to a
house transfer. That got down to under
$200 because the market was competitive.
The Louisiana‑Pacific project, subject to
environmental approvals, gives to Manitobans opportunities, opportunities to
work, opportunities to work in construction, and it will be up to Manitobans in
that industry to take advantage of those opportunities to be competitive in
taking advantage of them.
If the member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) and the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) are suggesting, as I believe they are, that it is up
to this Legislature to impose some legal authority that says that if you are
going to build anything in Manitoba, then Manitobans must work on it, oh, it is
a great line. It sounds great when you
are talking to maybe an unemployed construction worker, but when Manitobans are
cut out of jobs in other provinces, when Manitobans are cut out of jobs south
of the border because they impose the same rule on us that we would impose on
them, then let those members look those people in the face and explain why they
are cut out of that work.
I will tell you, Madam Chairperson, there are many, many
Manitobans who work in construction and the building trades who do much work
out of this province. One should ask
them if they would want to see a barrier such as being suggested by members
opposite created or the issue being ducked by the member for Osborne and the
Liberal party.
So I say very clearly that we will do whatever we can to
ensure that we work with Manitobans in the construction industry to have the
skills to be competitive, to help them be competitive. That is why this government has worked
towards developing a tax structure that is competitive. That is why we have worked at keeping our
costs of government down, so that our people in this province can be
competitive. That is why we want to run
an efficient Workers Compensation Board and bring accident rates down, so that
we can be competitive. That is what it
is all about, and that is what we continue to work at and the Ministry of
Labour does its part in achieving that objective.
By setting those goals and by ensuring that Manitobans can
be competitive when the people of Swan River find an opportunity to enhance the
economy of their region and our province, Manitobans then can be competitive to
ensure they maximize the benefits that that project brings. That is what it is about, Madam Chair.
I found it just so ironical that the Liberal representative
in this committee today would somehow imply that this project is not good
because Manitoba construction trades will not get the jobs because they will
not be competitive unless this Legislature makes them competitive by giving
them some special privilege. That is not
appropriate, not at all.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b)‑‑
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Since time is growing short for the Labour
Estimates, I have a few questions I am going to give to the minister as notice
and will hopefully be raising these questions during the concurrence motion
that will give me the opportunity to achieve the answers I am seeking to the
questions I am about to put on the record.
For the minister's notice, I would like to know, and I will
give his staff the opportunity to record this as well, the number of worker
advisors that we currently have, because they fall under the direct
jurisdiction of the Department of Labour, whether or not these positions that
we have are full time or part time, if there are any existing vacancies within
the Worker Advisor Office, and if so, when are they going to be filled? Do we have any people under contract as
advisors? What is the caseload for each
of the worker advisors, average and year‑over‑year comparison?
I would also like to know the names of the worker
advisors. I would like to know the
length of service for each of the worker advisors and what their assigned
duties are, and if there are any restrictions on any of the worker advisors
relating to whether or not they are allowed to purely intake for the Worker
Advisors Office and whether or not they have any restrictions on their
abilities to handle any caseloads and whether they should or should not be
handling caseloads.
I would also like to know why junior advisors, because I am
told that this is currently the practice, currently have the ability to shut
down case files when it may not be in their experience purview to undertake
that action. I would also like to know
what training is provided for the worker advisors, because it is my
understanding that several worker advisors, new worker advisors have been hired. The minister may not have the staff here and
it may give him the opportunity, and I will raise this matter during
concurrence.
Also the minister made reference to the fact that there
were some problems with respect to the people, allowing them to undertake to
negotiate and to charge whatever fee they want.
Maybe the minister then needs to look at his own position and the
position of some of his colleagues from the law fraternity, Madam Chairperson,
and change the method in which the fee structures are negotiated, that lawyers
provide services to the communities. I
mean, if we are going to have fee schedules set for lawyers, then why is it not
comparable to have similar services set for people in construction. I have had to pay these fees myself.
An Honourable Member: Shop around.
Mr. Reid: Sure you can shop around, but that does not
mean that the fee schedule is not set, and that is what we are asking for here,
is to have a base line.
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chair, I think we should be able to
answer many of those questions when the staff get down here, but I say to the
member, if he feels he has overpaid for legal services, I am not going to
defend his shopping habits or who he has hired or been overcharged or not. Shop around.
When I have needed the use of a lawyer for a house deal or
any such thing, I have shopped around and I have gotten a good deal. There is no minimum fee in the legal
profession. You get what you pay for
and, quite frankly, it is true in construction, you get what you pay for,
except we do have a minimum rate in construction, unlike virtually every other
industry in the province of Manitoba. If
we want to debate that there are probably other times to do it outside the
House, but the member should not bring his failure to shop around for legal
services, his inability to be a good shopper and overpay for something to this
House and ask that the Legislature somehow solve his problem of being a poor
shopper.
With respect to the Worker Advisor Office, I will deal with
those questions right now, Madam Chair, because they have been asked. First of all, the number of worker advisors
we currently have is 12 people in the branch.
One is a support staff who is also doing training to do some worker
advisor functions, another is a secondment from the federal government, which
will be ending shortly. All of these
people are, I believe, full‑time staff.
We currently have no vacancies in the branch. There are no staff who are on contract, you
know, with the caveat of the one person who is seconded. That really is not a contract.
* (1650)
With respect to the caseload, the average number of cases‑‑by
the way, this is the largest staff I believe we have ever had at the Worker
Advisor Office. In terms of caseload,
and remember this number may be somewhat misleading in the sense that there are
always tougher, more demanding cases than others, but the highest would be a
caseload of 87. The average would
probably be somewhere around 65 or 70.
Just looking at the list, it varies from 22 to, as I said, a high of 83.
One particular note that I make for the member is when Mr.
McFarlane, who has joined us now, who is executive director of this part of the
department, took over this area he did a comparison of similar offices across
Canada and the caseload that those offices were carrying and found that ours at
that particular time was not carrying the same kind of caseloads in volume as
similar organizations in other provinces.
We made some effort to reorganize, look at how we handled workloads, how
we dealt with cases, our own administrative procedures, and managed in a very
short period of time to bring ourselves up to what others were doing in other
provinces. As well, we found that our
backlog for worker advisors dried up to what had been six or seven months just
by reorganizing the way we were doing things and improving our work performance
that virtually the backlog dried up. I
do not believe there is a backlog today in that branch, that if you required a
worker advisor you could probably be assigned one within a week.
Carrying on with the questions the member raises. In terms of training, our worker advisors are
trained internally. We also work with
the Workers Compensation Board who have offered and work with us in setting up
training programs on all of their various policies, procedures, et cetera, so
our officers are well aware of what they need know to handle specific
cases. With respect to junior advisors
shutting down case files, I can tell the member that one of the difficulties we
had in this branch, and I remember it as a problem before I was minister when I
was in the government back benches, was that there almost was a period of time
when no one ever shut down a file, even one where it had been appealed, it had
been lost at appeal, there was not any evidence to take the case for a review
of that adjudication, but the file was kept on and on and on.
So this office now very much acts in a similar way to a law
office that a case file is open, the work is done. When a point is reached where either it is
resolved or all avenues of appeal have been exhausted or there simply is not
the evidence to support an appeal and there is nothing more that can be done
with respect to that file, then the file is closed. Files can be reopened if new evidence comes
forward or circumstances change, but one of the great disservices, I think,
that that office in the past did to many claimants was keep the hope of an
appeal alive when there was not sufficient evidence or reason to do that.
In terms of providing the member with the names of all of
our worker advisors, what I will do is I will undertake to have our staff
provide him with that list in writing, you know, given the fact that there
should be some privacy to those individuals involved.
Mr. Reid: I can understand the minister wanting to do
that, and I appreciate that, and I will look forward to the list.
Can the minister tell me if the one support staff or the
one seconded from the federal government, I take it‑‑the minister
indicates that the seconded individual is going to be leaving soon or that
agreement is going to be ending. Have
there been any restrictions or were there any restrictions placed on the
individual's activities when they were to fill that position? Can the minister tell me who is filling that
position?
Mr. Praznik: Madam Chairperson, it just should be noted
that when we do have new staff coming in and they are going through training,
the manager of the branch and senior staff work with that individual. When they develop, to the comfort level of
the manager of that branch, the knowledge to handle matters on their own, then
of course they have much more leeway in their work. In the early parts of training, they are supervised
to a much greater degree by the manager in that branch.
With respect to the person from the federal government,
they came over, I believe, on a secondment to learn about this process and what
we do. We managed to pick up this
individual on a secondment to us. The
individual came from the Unemployment Insurance Commission. It was a means of exchanging information on
how things work in different systems, because obviously there is an overlap
between Workers Compensation and UIC. An
individual who may not be eligible for Workers' Compensation may be eligible
for unemployment insurance sick benefits.
So there certainly was a benefit to sharing information among our staff
about procedures and processes between them.
The name of the individual we will provide privately to the
member, if that is fine. It is just that
I have some difficulty in naming line staff in a public forum such as this, to
protect their privacy somewhat. If that
is acceptable to the member, we will identify that person in the list of
individuals.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chairperson, I will look forward to
that information from the minister.
Also, I will be asking some more questions relating to the staff when we
get into the concurrence, the functions and the restrictions under which they
were hired. So I am just making the
minister aware of that when we move to concurrence. Pass.
Madam Chairperson: 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $260,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $69,700‑‑pass.
2.(a) Management Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$1,271,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $276,200‑‑pass.
2.(b) Mechanical and Engineering (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,803,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $426,400‑‑pass.
2.(c) Fire Prevention (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$1,927,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,354,000‑‑pass.
2.(d) Conciliation, Mediation and Pay Equity Services (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $428,200‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $94,600‑‑pass.
2.(e) Pension Commission (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$290,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $79,600‑‑pass.
2.(f) Manitoba Labour Board (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $577,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $312,300‑‑pass.
2.(g) Workplace Safety and Health (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $2,308,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $740,500‑‑pass.
2.(h) Occupational Health (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $205,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $35,500‑‑pass.
* (1700)
Order, please. The
hour being 5 p.m., what is the will of the committee?
An Honourable Member: To finish.
Madam Chairperson: To ignore the clock.
Item 2.(j) Mines Inspection (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $651,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $178,000‑‑pass.
2.(k) Employment Standards (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,642,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $272,900‑‑pass.
2.(m) Worker Advisor Office (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $545,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $125,200‑‑pass.
2.(n) Labour Adjustment (l) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$330,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $316,800‑‑pass.
Resolution 11.2:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$16,193,200 for Labour, Labour Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1995.
Resolution 11.3:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$225,000 for Labour, Payment of Wages Fund, for the fiscal year ending the 31st
day of March, 1995.
At this time, I would ask that the minister's staff to
please leave the Chamber.
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $10,300‑‑pass.
Resolution 11.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$340,800 for Labour, Labour Executive, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day
of March, 1995.
This concludes the Estimates for the Department of Labour.
Order, please. The
hour being 5 p.m., and time for private members' hour, committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
Let me rephrase that.
The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, I am leaving
the Chair with the understanding that this committee will reconvene at 8 p.m.
in Committee of Supply.
IN SESSION
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
Committee Changes
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Law Amendments be amended as follows:
the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) for the member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk); the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for the member for Dauphin (Mr.
Plohman).
I move, seconded by the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar),
that the composition of the Standing Committee on Economic Development be
amended as follows: the member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid) for the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk); the member
for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) for the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee
on Economic Development be amended as follows:
the member for Springfield (Mr. Findlay) for the member for St. Norbert
(Mr. Laurendeau).
I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer),
that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments for the
Tuesday 9 a.m. sitting be amended as follows:
the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member for Charleswood (Mr.
Ernst); and the member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Vodrey) for the member for
Springfield (Mr. Findlay).
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I have matters of conduct of business in the House that I would
like to bring forward.
Bills 2, 4, 19 and 21, which were previously referred to
Law Amendments for 7 p.m., Tuesday, June 28, are now referred to the 9 a.m.
meeting of the same committee on the same day. [agreed]
Bills 5, 11 and 14, which were previously referred to Law
Amendments committee for Tuesday, June 28 at 9 a.m., are now referred to the
Committee on Economic Development for Tuesday, June 28 at 9 a.m. [agreed]
Bill 18, previously referred to Law Amendments committee
for Tuesday, June 28 at 7 p.m., is now referred to the Committee on Economic
Development for Tuesday, June 28 at 9 a.m. [agreed]
* (1710)
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 23‑‑Grow Bonds
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister),
WHEREAS Rural Development is filled with innovative
creative business people; and
WHEREAS it is well known most jobs are created within the
small‑business sector; and
WHEREAS the Manitoba Grow Bond program has been successful
in bringing investment to rural communities totalling $14.7 million; and
WHEREAS Manitoba Grow Bonds have enabled many rural
businesses to either expand or start creating 250 full‑time jobs.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House support Rural
Development and the Grow Bond program.
Motion presented.
Mr. Helwer: Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a real privilege
to be able to‑‑
House Business
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House that post 10 p.m.
this evening, with the leave of the House, we can commence new departmental
Estimates.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that should the department as
designated complete before 10 p.m. this evening, new departments can be started
after 10 p.m., contrary to our existing rule?
Is that agreed?
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Just to clarify,
there is agreement to start one department if time does arise prior to
midnight. That is the exact agreement,
that we do agree to allow a department to start after ten o'clock but prior to
midnight.
Mr. Orchard: The same order of business, as stated, that
we can start another department after ten o'clock and adjourn at midnight.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Agreed.
Mr. Orchard: The second point, Madam Deputy Speaker, with
leave of the House that at 8 p.m. we commence consideration of the Estimates of
the Civil Service Commission, and with leave of the House not conclude those
Estimates and conclude them at a later time, either this evening or before
conclusion of the Estimates.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave of the House to commence
Estimates, I assume, in the Chamber in the Committee of Supply? For clarification, the Civil Service
Commission is the next department up and has already previously been scheduled
for the Chamber. I believe what I am
attempting to acquire leave for is that the Estimates for the department of Civil
Service Commission be commenced, but not necessarily finished, and that leave
be granted to proceed to commence the Estimates for the Department of Urban
Affairs? Is that accurate.
Some Honourable Members: Right.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave? [agreed]
* * *
Mr. Helwer: Madam Deputy Speaker, now I can get on with
the private members' business and that of the resolution on the rural Grow Bond
program. I am really pleased to be able
to introduce this resolution because it is a good one and the Grow Bond program
is an excellent program and working very well in Manitoba.
It was first brought in by the Department of Rural
Development back in the fall of 1991, and it provides for the means for rural
Manitoba communities to participate directly in strengthening their own local
rural economies. What it does is let
local people invest in their own local industries to provide jobs for their own
local people. That is the real crux of
the whole Grow Bond program, what it should do.
They act as a catalyst for local development and diversification, and
they bring together local people with some money to invest in the community‑based
industries. So it is just a great
program.
Just a little background on the program of how it initially
started. The Grow Bonds placed the
economic management and control directly in the hands of the community. The community can start their own Grow Bonds
committee in order to build to invest in a particular industry, and they are
designed to allow communities to define and pursue their own economic goals and
objectives. Communities plan and manage
their own Grow Bonds offerings to raise capital which is used to finance
eligible new business opportunities and expansions.
These activities are managed through our Rural Development
Bond corporation formed in each community.
So they have worked very well. To
date, we have 13 projects that have been approved in Manitoba. Communities that are involved in this are
Morden, Winkler‑‑Winkler actually has three projects‑‑Teulon,
Morris, Rivers, Selkirk, Portage la Prairie, Southport, Arborg and
Angusville. There is also a project in
Russell that is still awaiting environmental approval. So the total job creation for the 13 projects
are about 403 for a total Grow Bonds amount of $5,889,000, with a total overall
investment of over $18 million.
Currently there are eight further projects that are under review. So it has just been a great program that has
worked very well.
I just want to talk to you a little bit about a couple of
specific corporations. One that is in my
constituency, in my community, is the Care Corporation whereby they received
approval in May of 1992, which is one of the first ones in force, for an
$800,000 Grow Bonds investment. This
sale was very successful, and funds were invested in that particular company.
It took a little while for the company to order the
equipment and get everything going, but now they do have their equipment and
they have been operating now for about a year or more, and it is doing very
well. It has taken a little while for
them to get their market established, but they are paying the interest to these
people who do have the Grow Bonds investments, and it is working very
well. They pay the interest to the
people who do have the bonds quarterly, and they have been meeting their
commitment. So it is working quite well.
Just recently I had the privilege of being in Arborg,
Manitoba, where‑‑
An Honourable Member: Yes, a fine community.
Mr. Helwer: Yes, actually Arborg is a very progressive
community. You are right, Brian
Pallister, it is a great community.
Arborg had a creamery there that was abandoned by its owner
a number of years ago, and it was just a good building, just a new building
actually. It was set up for a cheese
plant but it just never got to be because the former owners had‑‑there
was a union organized so the owners did not get established. The project was abandoned at that time. It sat vacant for many, many years, and
Gilbert International came along and was looking for a place to manufacture
some fast‑food products. One of
them is actually quiche.
* (1720)
An Honourable Member: Quiche.
Real men eat quiche.
Mr. Helwer: Well, I do not know about that, but Gilbert
International actually has been doing business in Manitoba for a number of
years, but they were having their product made in Ontario actually and they
were operating in Winnipeg here just as a warehouse and a sales organization,
and they took over the Arborg creamery and they are going to manufacture this.
I believe they are going to start with about 30 employees
and they are going to manufacture this product, this quiche to start with, plus
they will be manufacturing other products, fast‑food products mainly,
that will sell to different areas of Manitoba and to Canada.
Actually they are going to create 60 jobs, I am sorry, not
the 30 jobs, 60 jobs within three years they tell us. That is a good investment, and they are going
to have a Grow Bonds issue of $770,000.
We also helped this company, through the REDI program
actually, with a $35,000 loan to Gilbert International also.
What they are going to do with this $770,000 is buy new
equipment and relocate their equipment in Arborg and the creamery there so that
they can manufacture this product locally for Manitoba and also for export use.
So this is just a great project that fit in very well with
this particular industry, and it is doing very well in Arborg. They have the equipment now, and they will be
in operation very soon.
I was there for the announcement with the honourable Len
Derkach, the Minister of Rural Development, when we announced this. Also, some people from the Ministry of
Industry, Trade and Tourism were also there.
Another good project that was announced last fall, in
Selkirk actually, was the‑‑
An Honourable Member: Sterling Press.
Mr. Helwer: Sterling Press, that is right. That is owned by the Hicksons, Jim and Debbie
Hickson [phonetic], and also I think Walter Peters [phonetic] is maybe‑‑yes,
there you go. The member for Selkirk
(Mr. Dewar) has the material on that one.
I honestly want to say that one is doing very well. It was a $430,000 expansion and Grow Bonds
involvement of a total of $170,000. This
company has been very successful, I understand, and is doing very well. It is exceeding its initial estimate of‑‑I
forget how many jobs they were going to have there. [interjection] How many
jobs there? [interjection] Okay, we will let the member for Selkirk talk about
that one, because that is a good one too, and we were really pleased. I was involved with that one, and we were
really pleased with that one also.
An Honourable Member: Good news feeding on good news.
Mr. Helwer: Well, that is right. That is part of why it is such a good
program. It lets people invest in their
own community. So it is working very
well.
Also, while we are on the topic of economic development and
talking about the good things happening, especially with the Grow Bond program,
just recently there was a news release saying that Manitoba exports show solid
growth, and our exports to the United States grew by some 18.5 percent last
year, which is the highest annual increase since 1988.
An Honourable Member: No kidding.
Mr. Helwer: Yes, it is a fact. So the total of export dollars from Manitoba
is a total of $2.5 billion. That is a
lot of production and a lot of jobs that we get out of the export market.
An Honourable Member: How much?
Mr. Helwer: It was $2.5 billion we exported in goods to
the‑‑this is mainly to the United States. This was a growth of 18.5 percent over the
year previous. [interjection] That is right.
This is Free Trade. This is what
Free Trade and our NAFTA agreements are doing for Canada, really. They are helping.
Since 1990 actually, our exports to the United States are
up by over 40 percent. Our market to the
United States is one of our fastest growing markets. We still do export a fair amount to other countries,
to other parts of the world and that also grew to more than $3.5 billion
actually in 1993, which is an increase of about 3.3 percent over the year
prior, so I think that is good news also.
This was also the gain in exports to other parts of the
world in spite of a 35 percent decline in grain exports due to poor growing
weather and poor growing conditions, and so the nongrain exports to the world
grew by more than 14 percent. This is
really, really good news.
Our Manitoba companies are continuing to expand and grow at
a pace that is certainly setting the standard for other provinces. The reason for this is because of the good
economic climate created by this government really.
Someone did mention the federal government here. I have something that I am really, really
concerned with and that is in today's local paper whereby the paper talks about
the Community Futures program. They say,
is there a future for Community Futures?
This bothers me because in the Interlake we have two
Community Futures programs: the NEICOM
program, which is headquartered in Riverton, and also the Super 6 program,
which is on the west side of the Interlake, but actually these Community
Futures programs do provide a useful service to many of our businesses.
This was started by the former federal government. This was how the former federal government
used unemployment insurance money actually to help create jobs in
Manitoba. It was a good program really
and it helped many businesses start and train people, employees and it did a
good job, but now I am afraid we might lose this program or these
programs. This federal government is
planning to phase out the Community Futures programs. This would certainly hurt us in the Interlake
with our two Community Futures programs that we do have.
I know some of the businesses that have taken advantage of
the assistance offered by this program, and it has been just great. One of the people that work for them, Greg
Dandewich, who manages the NEICOM, actually out of Riverton, just does a great
job. Not only do they borrow money and
loan funds to some of the business people who are starting up, but they also
give them good financial advice and good business advice so they really have a
role to play and they have done a great job.
Actually they have worked in conjunction with Interlake Co‑op
Corporations, our Rural Development corporations, the federal Community Futures
program, worked in conjunction with these and helped many businesses up in
rural Manitoba. So I certainly hope that
the federal government comes to their senses.
Hopefully they will continue to fund these programs, and hopefully the
Community Futures program will maybe continue because it was designed to direct
our unemployment insurance funds to this to help with training and to provide
jobs for some of the people who are on unemployment insurance.
* (1730)
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think I will end my
remarks here and let other people speak on this, but I just want to emphasize
again how great the Grow Bond program is in Manitoba, how successful it has
been and I am sure it will continue to be so that rural Manitoba can grow and
continue to employ people and grow stronger.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the
opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon on the resolution brought
forward by the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), and I just want to add some more
comments. He overlooked a few
things. I thought it was important that
we put all the facts on the record this afternoon.
One, of course, was the dismal record of this government in
terms of job creation and other economic indicators. Last year, I believe, we were tied with
Newfoundland in terms of economic growth in this province, in this country, and
they, of course, they have the excuse of having the dismal situation with the
fisheries in that particular province.
So we do welcome the Grow Bonds concept.
We do welcome positive news in terms of creating employment in our
province.
It is important to remember that the Grow Bonds were set up
after the government introduced video lottery terminals into the province, and
at the time, they said that all the money that would be generated by the video
lottery terminals, all of that money, would go back into rural Manitoba for
economic development initiatives, but instead, there was only a small
percentage of the millions and millions of dollars that were generated by VLTs
that actually went back into rural Manitoba.
In my particular community, there are around 100 or so VLTs
in the Selkirk constituency, and on average, each machine generates in revenues
to the province of $2,000. So that would
be around $2 million per year that leaves the Selkirk constituency for the
Treasury of this province and‑‑[interjection] I want to thank the
members opposite for correcting me. You
are right. It is actually $20,000 in
revenue per machine. Again, the $2‑million
figure was accurate. That is the number
of dollars that is leaving the Selkirk constituency every year, coming into the
coffers of the province, and very little of that money actually goes back into
the community of Selkirk.
The member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) referenced a Grow Bonds
issue that helped a company, the Sterling Press Inc., and the Grow Bond, the
issue, the approval of the bond, the sale of the bond and the success of that
company we do approve of. It is
anticipated that the company will create an additional 18 jobs in the Selkirk
community, and I want to commend all those in the Selkirk community who worked
on setting up the Grow Bonds, the corporation, and all those individuals in
Selkirk who went out and purchased the bonds.
It is my understanding that the bonds were purchased in a matter of
days.
There is, unfortunately, some criticism as well in terms of
the Grow Bonds. Selkirk also applied for
a Grow Bond in 1992 where they were planning on developing the downtown area,
the dock area, and there was hopes to put a multimillion‑dollar hotel‑convention
centre complex on the dock. The problem
was that there was a similar one or basically an identical project brought
forward in the community of Steinbach, but the one in Steinbach received Grow
Bonds approval, while the one in Selkirk did not. So it is pretty obvious there was some
political interference in that particular situation.
When you consider that in 1987‑88, I believe it was,
when there was an initiative brought forward by the previous government under
the NDP government to redevelop the downtown area of Selkirk, there was money
committed by the Premier, there was money committed by the federal government. What happened there was, unfortunately, a
change of government, Madam Deputy Speaker, at that time, and the new
government did not honour the commitments made by the former one. So, unfortunately, our downtown area did not
have the opportunity to be developed.
Then, I think it was mentioned, there was a project brought
forward by the community to get the Grow Bonds to bring forward to develop the
downtown area of Selkirk, the dock area‑‑at the time it was called
the Robinson harbour development‑‑but unfortunately that project
did not go through.
The criticism not only comes from this side, it also comes
from other Manitobans, the Chamber of Commerce, for example, Jack Wilson, who
is the president of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce. In an article in the Portage la Prairie Daily
Graphic from May of last year, he said, people are very frustrated. They get the local corporation up and running
and the money collected, and they cannot get a decision out of the government.
That was quoted by an individual, Jack Wilson, President,
the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Madam Deputy Speaker, so it is not only the
issues and criticism that we are raising, objective criticism, I might add,
from our side, but it is also the Chambers of Commerce in this province that
are raising concerns.
Another story around that particular issue, entitled,
Bureaucratic bungling blamed for slow growth of Grow Bonds‑‑again,
Mr. Wilson goes on to say, there is too much bureaucracy and too much
cautiousness on the part of the government, where again the corporations are
set up, and unfortunately the government is a little too cautious in getting
some of these plans forward.
There was one again for Selkirk, the Sunnex program. Unfortunately, that did not work out. There are a few, of course, in Selkirk,
besides the one I mentioned, besides the Sterling Press and the Robinson
harbour development. There is the one that
is hoping to obtain the funding, and that is the Jentan Resources. They are interested in obtaining funding from
the Grow Bond program to set up another business in the Selkirk community to
supply energy to some of the government offices there in Selkirk. Right now, of course, they are going through
the process of getting an environmental licence.
One of the more famous examples of a company in recent
times that is interested in obtaining or needing Grow Bonds money, of course,
is the SHI, the Saskatoon Heavy Industries Company. They recently changed their name to Tayco
Industries Limited [phonetic]. Members
will remember last May 10, when the Liberal Leader stood up in this House and
he attacked the 594 jobs coming to Selkirk.
He attacked the integrity of the owner of this company, and he attacked,
as well, the credibility of the members of the Selkirk community who worked for
years, literally years, to get this project to come to the Selkirk community.
He stands up in the House one day. He says, who is SHI, and why are you giving
this money‑‑an indication of incredibly poor research on behalf of
the Liberal Party. But instead of
admitting that he made a mistake, a huge, huge blunder, nevertheless, what did
he do? He put his other foot in his mouth.
I had a chance to speak with Mr. Blue Taylor from Tayco
[phonetic], and he is deeply concerned about the comments put forward by the
Liberal Party and the claims and complete falsehoods put on the record by the
Leader of the Liberal Party.
It is kind of funny because the editor of the paper‑‑we
were discussing this issue‑‑said, well, Mr. Edwards phoned me to
ask me about SHI so he could then tell me about SHI. This is the level of research done by the
Leader of the Liberal Party.
He also claimed that Mr. Taylor was in, I think it was,
Arizona while in fact Mr. Taylor was recuperating from an illness in the
hospital at the time.
We in Selkirk are used to being ignored by the
Liberals. They never raised a question
in the House, and their former Leader never really understood the community,
never really raised any issues. We were
used to that, and actually, considering the recent events, we wish they would
have simply forgot about Selkirk because they did more harm than they did good
trying to raise the Selkirk issue.
* (1740)
But instead, as I mentioned, he stood up and asked about
the integrity of this individual and without even knowing anything about
it. One day he knew nothing, and the
next day he was condemning it, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is not only criticism raised by
myself. He not only attacked the integrity
of myself for working along with Mr. Taylor to bring the jobs to Selkirk, he
also insults the mayor of Selkirk and the town council, who supported this
particular company, supplied me with a letter from the mayor, again, supporting
the project, again‑‑Liberals, they should have asked. You would think that they would have at least
asked the mayor.
An Honourable Member: Did they?
Mr. Dewar: No, they did not ask anyone. Their total research, they simply‑‑they
made one phone call, apparently, to somebody in Saskatchewan, and that was it,
and a few newspaper clippings. That was
the extent of their thorough research on this whole issue. But no, no, that is not good for the River
Heights lawyer. That is not good enough
for the River Heights lawyer. He knows
what is good for Selkirk. The people in
Selkirk do not know. The chamber of
commerce, they do not know. The mayor
and the town council, they do not know what is good for Selkirk. Triple S Business Development Corporation,
which worked on this for years, they do not know what is good for Selkirk. The Liberal Leader knows what is good for
Selkirk. That is why he stood up in this
House. He attacked this corporation, and
he attacked the whole community of Selkirk.
It was shameful.
Triple S‑‑one of the town councillors, he calls Mr. Edwards'
comments irresponsible. In fact, he
expressed‑‑I want to read a quote from the Selkirk paper. This fellow's name is Councillor Dick
Willows. He expressed even deeper
indignation, saying Edwards' statement in the Legislature does not even have a
touch of intelligence to it. Then after
he has talked to Mr. Edwards, this was his comment. After Mr. Edwards phoned him to clarify up his
comments, Mr. Willows goes on to quote:
I think, for a man in his position to get up in the Legislature and do
what he did with incomplete information at a very delicate time in
negotiations, he acted irresponsibly. It
does not indicate to me a very high degree of business acumen and maturity.
In fact, he is deeply concerned. Councillor Willows is deeply concerned that
the antics of the Liberal Leader will seriously jeopardize the project,
seriously jeopardize the project. What
do we have? We have the Liberal critic‑‑and
their candidate out in Selkirk has not renounced, they have not put forward
their position in terms of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, and here we have got‑‑[interjection]
The Liberal candidate must support Paul Edwards because he is silent on the
issue. We have not heard one word from
him either way except his admission of complete and utter ignorance of the
issue of SHI. That is the only thing he
has said so far.
So anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are really deeply
concerned about what the Liberal Leader has done to our community with the
comments that he has made in the Chamber.
Instead, again trying to admit that he made this huge blunder, to say
that he put these embarrassing comments on the record, that he made an utter
fool of himself, he simply continues on, and I believe the next day he wrote a
letter to the editor attacking the editor's credibility, the same editor who
the week before gave him some information on SHI. So at least he tried to inform the Liberal
Leader about the issue.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I could go on and on and on about the
Liberals' position on economic development, their attack on our community, but
unfortunately I noticed that my time is expired, so I will allow someone else
to continue with the conversation.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure for me
to stand and to talk on this particular resolution. I think it has been acknowledged that the
Grow Bond program has been an initiative that has received support from all
political parties inside this Chamber, and it is a positive and a creative
idea, and we look to see the continual support from the local communities in
terms of actually doing the investment.
That is probably the most important thing because I think that if you
provide the opportunity or the vehicle for rural Manitobans to be able to
invest their money and to get the local economies going, that they will, in
fact, take advantage of that and do just that and create jobs and so forth.
I took some exception, or I should not say some, almost
entire exception to everything that the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) was
saying with the exception of the lotteries portion, Madam Deputy Speaker. Speaking strictly with SHI, you can tell the
member for Selkirk has bought everything that Mr. Taylor and his organization
has sold to the member for Selkirk.
I hope that the member for Selkirk is not trying to build
up expectations within his own community, not knowing in terms of what the
facts are on this particular individual and some of the things that he has
done. There have been very valid
concerns that have been raised about SHI, and it would be irresponsible of an
opposition party not to call into account some of the actions that this particular
individual has had in other jurisdictions.
I would caution the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) in terms
of what it is that he might want to put on the record now, because if the past
record of this particular individual comes to the province of Manitoba and does
not materialize, like he has apparently indicated to the member for Selkirk,
who is 100 percent behind Mr. Taylor, well, I believe that a great number of
people, residents of Selkirk, would be vastly disappointed in the member for
Selkirk.
The member for Selkirk does have a responsibility in terms
of promoting and encouraging, to get people involved in the community, like all
of us inside our own respective constituencies.
It is also important that we do not lead our constituents along a line
of path that might not necessarily come true to the same degree that the member
for Selkirk has pointed out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, having made mention to the Grow Bond
program, I think it is also important to comment in terms of what the
government has done in rural Manitoba has not been all that positive. I recall when I was the Lotteries critic, for
example, that we had a government that introduced the VLTs into rural Manitoba
and made a decision that all of that monies raised from VLTs would be going
back into rural Manitoba. Because the $1
million or $2 million that no doubt they were anticipating was going to be
raised far exceeded the $1 million or $2 million, what happened is the
government backtracked and decided that only a percentage of those VLT dollars
would in fact be going back into rural Manitoba.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that has always been a concern that
the Liberal caucus has expressed through the past couple of years since its
inception. On the one hand, we have a
government that has gone out into the communities and is withdrawing a great
sum of dollars out of the communities and has established, through the REDI
program, a program that will see 25 percent of the dollars and an additional 10
percent of those same funds will go back through unconditional grants to the
municipal governments, but total, you are looking at 35 percent. You are still talking 65 percent of the
dollars that are coming out of rural Manitoba that are not being returned. We had expressed at the time that was not the
best way to go about in terms of ensuring rural economic development. So although this particular program is a step
in the right direction, there have been more significant events that have cost
rural Manitoba and the rural economy that much more.
With those few words, Madam Deputy Speaker, we shall
conclude.
Mr. Brian Pallister
(Portage la Prairie): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise
and put a few comments on the record on the resolution of the member for Gimli
(Mr. Helwer) regarding Grow Bonds.
It is nice to be a part of, what I think, in comparison to
many private members' resolutions, kind of a love‑in today. There seems to be uniform support for the
Grow Bond program, and great evidence of that appears when members of course
deviate to other topics at the side of the issue. The reality is that the Grow Bond program is
a good initiative and is a positive initiative for rural Manitoba. It is one that allows for the people of
Manitoba to put their money where their faith is, and if their faith is in
their home community, and I believe there is strong evidence it is in my
community and many others in rural Manitoba, then people will choose to buy the
Grow Bonds that are offered for sale.
* (1750)
I want to share just an experience I had during the by‑election
campaign when I was going door to door with members because I think it is
revealing to me of the true reason for this program. This is my first experience with going door
to door so it was quite an experience for me.
As I was going down one of the streets in my home town, I happened to
make my way to the door of this small but well‑looked‑after little
property, and a lady very hesitatingly came to the door, in her 80s I would
guess, and we got to talking. I
explained why I was there, and that put her a little bit at ease. She explained some of her background to
me. As it turned out, she was a widow
and lived alone. When I asked her a
little bit about her family, she explained that she had just been widowed for a
few months, but she did have three boys.
I asked her their names and if they lived in Portage, and she conveyed
to me that they did not live in Portage.
In fact, none of them lived in Manitoba.
None of them made their homes in Manitoba.
She had tear‑filled eyes at that point, and I think
the irony of this is that what we all want to see‑‑all of us in
this Chamber‑‑is a situation exist, not just in rural Manitoba, but
certainly in Manitoba as a province, where family members can make their homes
in the communities of other family members, and that we can, wherever possible,
at least give that opportunity a chance to flourish.
For that senior, it would be quite a different life in her
later years if she had even one of her boys living in the community of Portage
la Prairie. Close by to give her
support, it would be beneficial to her, and certainly to all of us, but the
situation was not allowed to exist and that is unfortunate.
It is true it is characteristic of many, many of rural
Manitoba's communities that family members must leave to find economic
sufficiency. What this program does for
those seniors is it gives them the hope that other families will not have to go
separate ways. It gives them the hope
that jobs can be created in those communities where these people have chosen to
live, to work, to make their homes, to raise their families and where young
people can come up with the opportunity at least to stay in their homes and
close proximity to other family members.
That incident impressed me with the urgency of working very
diligently towards economic betterment in rural Manitoba. It impressed me when I came to work with this
government, as part of it, in the sincerity of those people who work with the
Grow Bond program, not just in terms of the people in the Rural Development
department certainly, but those people who are on the various boards that work
to examine the proposals. The people in
the communities where the Grow Bonds are offered, of course, they have to form
boards of directors and supervise the creation of these projects and then the
marketing of the Grow Bonds in those communities.
I want to congratulate, on the record, those people in the
communities who have taken on the task of serving on these boards. It is not a well‑paying position by any
stretch, but certainly it gives satisfaction and reward to those people because
it rewards them in knowing that they are working towards a better community.
I think the real principle behind the Grow Bond program is
one that says let us quit exporting jobs out of our community if we have the
opportunity to invest in something which is guaranteed and which can create
employment in Portage la Prairie. I know
the people of Portage la Prairie have amply demonstrated, because of the
success of the recent Grow Bonds offering in our community, that they are
willing to put their money into those programs and projects that will create
jobs in our community.
Despite that, I must take exception to some of the comments
made by members opposite in terms of the problems around the program. Due diligence is awfully important. We are talking about guaranteeing investment
here, and guaranteeing investment, well, who guarantees it? The taxpayers of this province are
guaranteeing it. We, on their behalf,
are supervising and overseeing the examination of these projects and proposals.
Now, in our neighbouring province to the west, that was not
done to the same degree, and millions of dollars of taxpayer revenue were lost
in foolhardy projects. We do not want to
see that duplicated in this province, no one does. So we have to have some common sense around
this. The guiding principle has to be
that these projects have to have real feasibility. They cannot be pipe dreams. Certainly, the Rural Development department
in its process of reviewing these, and the boards at the local level have to
always bear in mind that these projects are not handouts and should not be
reflected or treated as such, but they are projects that have to have some real
likelihood of achieving job creation in those areas.
So there is zero credibility when members opposite talk
about the problems around the process, especially when the member for Selkirk
(Mr. Dewar) talks about it, because certainly there was no problem whatsoever
with the process, with the Grow Bond program when the NDP was in power because
there was no program. You know, it is
easy to sit behind the glass at a curling rink and criticize the skip for
calling the wrong shot, but if you have not got the guts to get out on the ice,
then really I do not think your criticism has much merit. I really do not think it has any merit. Of course, this is all too typical of the
members from that particular political allegiance.
The actual projects in number‑‑in terms of
number, there have been a great many projects that have been approved thus far,
and the process is one that has allowed those projects, despite the growing
pains associated with evaluating them, to go forward. The projects in various communities have sold
out, some in very short order. I
understand one in Winkler sold out actually in a day. That is tremendous. It speaks very well for the degree of
commitment that is out there in the small communities and mid‑sized
communities of our province.
Total investment is over $18 million already in the Grow
Bond program, and that translates into hundreds of jobs in rural Manitoba. Of course, my bias, being from rural Manitoba,
I guess, is that I would like to see more jobs in rural Manitoba, and I
certainly think that such initiatives as the decentralization initiative this
government undertook, over strong opposition from both parties opposite, were
positive things.
The members opposite are all too often revealing of a kind
of urbanist attitude, particularly members of the Liberal Party, an attitude
that reveals a real flaw in common sense, I think, and awareness of what is out
there in Manitoba.
You know, all that a member of the Liberal Party need do is
just drive out of Winnipeg any Sunday night, pick any Sunday night and drive
out of Winnipeg in any direction and what you are going to encounter is a
steady, steady line of headlights coming at you, steady line. You will be relatively alone as you leave the
city on a Sunday evening, but you will run into a steady line of headlights
coming into the city of Winnipeg.
You honestly believe that all those vehicles are filled
with people who just love the thought of coming back into Winnipeg on a Sunday
night and leaving rural Manitoba, you are living in a dream world, because they
are not. They are loaded with people,
many of them, who have to come to Winnipeg to work, but they would prefer to
live in the community of their birth.
They would prefer to live in Thompson, they would prefer to live in
Selkirk, they would prefer to live in Portage la Prairie or Waskada or Virden
or Souris if they could get a job there.
They would prefer to live there because the quality of life in rural
Manitoba and in northern Manitoba is second to none, and it offers tremendous
opportunities for the people who can live and work in those communities.
This program is an intelligent program. It is a program that offers a great deal of
hope to the people of rural Manitoba without being a handout that it seems the
member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) is requesting that we do. He must understand that the money that goes
into the Grow Bond program is not reflective of handouts. Rural Manitobans do not want handouts. They want a hand up, but they do not want a
handout.
The Liberal mentality is that bigger government is better
government, but that is being shown repeatedly to be wrong and certainly in the
minds of most people of this province, it is wrong.
What the member for Inkster fails to understand is that the
money that is coming in from VLTs and from other gambling operations, and has
been coming in for some time to government coffers, is money that is being
dedicated chiefly and firstly to reducing the deficit. The deficit is nothing other than a deferred
tax, so when you reduce a tax you increase the likelihood of jobs.
Now a Liberal government stands for larger tax increases
and therefore reduced employment opportunities and unfortunately‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) will have four minutes and 54 seconds.
The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair with the
understanding that the House will resume in Committee of Supply at 8 p.m. this
evening.