PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS

Res. 10--Federal Disaster Assistance Funding

Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), that

WHEREAS traditionally the federal government has reimbursed municipalities up to 90 percent for all work that was required to be done after a disaster under the federal government Emergency Preparedness program; and

WHEREAS the federal government has shifted its policy without first consulting with any of the municipalities in the province and thus leaving these municipalities ill prepared to deal with the additional costs that will be incurred; and

WHEREAS the new federal policy has shifted the federal government's responsibility to providing compensation during times of disaster to only 16 percent for repair work undertaken using municipal equipment and employees, while still providing for 90 percent compensation if the repairs are contracted out; and

WHEREAS in most instances it is more practical and cost-effective for municipalities to utilize their own equipment and employees, especially during times of disaster when it is important to repair infrastructure as quickly as possible.

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the Province of Manitoba to consider soliciting the federal government to reconsider its position and to abide by its commitment to assume 90 percent of all work required after a disaster; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the Province of Manitoba to attempt to persuade the federal government to make a commitment to municipal employees that the federal government will not attempt to pressure or convince municipalities to contract out disaster assistance work that can be accomplished by municipal workers.

Motion presented.

Mr. Struthers: Mr. Deputy Speaker, today in the House I am doing the NDP's part in trying to push a log jam open that has been created by not just the federal government but the provincial government in the area of disaster assistance. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the people in Manitoba who from time to time find themselves up to their eyeballs in water or any of the other disasters that are covered by the federal and provincial governments can almost live with the fact that mother nature throws them a curve ball every now and then.

What the people of Manitoba cannot live with is when this curve ball is exaggerated and made worse through man-made means, through federal and provincial governments scrapping and squabbling over who pays what while municipalities across our province are left high and dry. In some cases, they would want to be high and dry with the amount of water that they have put up with recently, but they are left out on a limb by both the federal and provincial governments.

We are doing our part today in this House with this private member's resolution to try to get the ball rolling on behalf of municipalities across our province. This is a situation that I think is very serious. This is a situation that I think both the feds and the province have to get serious about, get down to work and come through for the people who are left in tough positions in Manitoba.

We have heard this spring, this summer particularly, from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) in Manitoba as he put forth his government's position on what the federal government has been doing in the areas of disaster assistance. While, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can empathize somewhat with the minister across the way, I believe that what he is doing in his attempt to strictly blame the federal government is play politics with an issue that is too important, I feel, to be partisan upon.

This is a time for the federal government and the Manitoba government to work together to help our municipalities out. That is not what has happened this spring. It is not what is foreseeable in the future if the two governments have themselves dug in to the point at which they do now. It is time for both governments, I believe, to step forward and try to solve this issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, we have heard in questioning in this House where the Minister of Government Services has tried to provide a distinction between his government's approach to helping people who need the help, a distinction between him and the federal government and its approach to this problem that we have in our province.

I want to quote though from a document from Emergency Preparedness Canada. It is entitled Disaster Financial Assistance, The Manual to Assist in the Interpretation of Federal Guidelines. This is obviously put out by the federal government and provides the guidelines under which they operate in providing disaster assistance.

It is Chapter 5 that I am quoting from, entitled Interpretation, Public Sector, Page 17, and it reads: Number 1. Most costs related to the restoration of public works other than normal ongoing or operating costs are eligible for assistance under the Disaster Financial Assistance Arrangements. This includes all pre-emptive action such as evacuation, building of temporary dikes, relocation of material or resources, sandbagging, incremental costs associated with the use of national defence troops or vehicles, and rental of equipment.

What is not included is the purchase of special or additional equipment to fight the disaster, salaries other than overtime of permanent employees or any expenditures related to preventive measures. The arrangements do not compensate for equipment, purchase or measures taken that would or should be a normal part of preparations to avoid or mitigate the effects of a future disaster.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is exactly what it says in the Disaster Financial Assistance, the manual that the federal government is supposed to live by. I read that into the record so that we can compare that to what the provincial government has in its own manual. This is entitled Province of Manitoba Disaster Financial Assistance Policy and Guidelines and Interpretations. It is put out by Manitoba Government Services.

In Section 10.1, under the title of Public Sector, it says this: In responding to a disaster, almost all public-sector costs, other than those related to normal ongoing or operating costs of a municipal government, shall be considered eligible for compensation under the Disaster Financial Assistance policy. This includes all pre-emptive action such as evacuation, building of temporary dikes, sandbagging, moving of livestock or dropping feed to stranded livestock and rental of equipment. What is not included is the purchase by a municipality of special or additional equipment to fight the disaster; salaries, other than overtime, of permanent employees; or any expenditures which are considered the responsibility of the public sector to incur as a preventative measure. That is, there is to be no compensation for equipment or measures which would normally be purchased or taken by a municipality to prepare itself for the eventuality of a major natural disaster.

* (1640)

That was from the provincial guidelines that the provincial government follows in providing assistance to municipalities when there is an emergency to compensate for. The point that I am making is that it seems to me that it is quite evident that there is not a whole lot of difference between what the provincial approach to disaster assistance consists of and what the federal approach is, which leads me to believe, why all the bluster from the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), why all the whining on radio, why all the finger pointing, why all the name calling of nameless, faceless bureaucrats from Ottawa when their policies are pretty much the same? As a matter of fact, they are more than just pretty much the same; they are almost completely the same.

My worst fear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that the provincial government is just playing politics on this matter and that the people who are being left out are those municipalities right now who keep contacting my office asking why the holdup, asking why are we not getting the amount of money that we deserve, asking me if I would be approaching the appropriate people concerned--the appropriate people within the Department of Government Services, the appropriate people in the Manitoba Disaster Assistance Board--to try to sort out their problems. I really do sympathize with those municipalities out there who have to sit back and put up with the kind of foot-dragging that we see from both levels of government.

Over and over and over again I have come across cases where the municipality does not know what it is to expect. It would like to have some kind of a schedule that says exactly how much money they can count on for what work has been done. The municipalities would love to be able to say, with some kind of surety, to their own people living in their municipalities that, when they put a claim forward, they can plan on getting whatever X number of dollars it is that they deserve to help them out during these kinds of emergency situations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is my fundamental belief that all 57 members of this Legislature are absolutely, genuinely concerned with helping people out when they are faced with an emergency, and I include all 57 of us when I say that. If there is another reason as to why some municipalities are being left out and some are kind of floating around adrift in a sea of confusion, I think it is incumbent upon both this Minister of Government Services and the federal minister and the federal department to be absolutely forthright with these municipalities. I think they owe it to the municipalities to be a lot more clear in the guidelines, a lot more clear in the messages that are being sent from both governments.

This is not an issue that has just been fabricated. This is not an issue that is a small one being exaggerated. It is an issue that people living in municipalities are really being affected by. I think we as politicians, as elected representatives, owe it to all those people living in R.M.s and town councils affected across Manitoba, I think we owe it to them to give them some straight answers in terms of the squabble that is taking place between the federal government and the province of Manitoba having to do with disaster assistance.

In many cases since I have become an MLA, we have had to deal with a problem that affects both the federal and the provincial government. What we have seen happen is the provincial government pointing at the feds and the federal government just returning the finger back to the province, pointing at each other and getting absolutely nowhere in terms of solving the problem, in terms of providing the relief that is necessary for people who find themselves in a very tough situation from time to time.

I think of several issues, especially in northern and rural Manitoba, particularly in northern Manitoba, dealing with aboriginal communities who will also have some concerns with the squabble that is taking place between the federal government and the province. I have some concerns that have been brought to me by aboriginal communities where they find themselves in the middle. They want some answers and all they are getting is the runaround back and forth from one level of government to the next.

I am sure that this is a problem that all members would like to solve. I do not understand why it continues to be such a problem except that maybe neither level of government wants to live up to its responsibility in providing some kind of relief assistance for people when they are in emergencies or maybe in the case of northern communities where money is owing, that neither the provincial nor federal government simply has the courage of their convictions to live up to their responsibilities in providing that kind of money for those communities. I am worried that each level of government is simply going to be content with sitting back and pointing fingers at each other trying to score political points in this whole melee that has been happening since the spring.

So, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that the speakers across the way stand today and very earnestly attempt to address the situation, because I do think it is a very important one that needs to be solved. Thank you.

Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I too would like to make some comments on the resolution that has been put forward. I would also like to congratulate the member for Dauphin for presenting the federal Liberal point of view in regard to this discussion. I would like to just make note where he starts out with his first WHEREAS, where it says, “WHEREAS traditionally the federal government has reimbursed municipalities up to 90 percent for all work that was required to be done after a disaster,” I think that speaks very straightforward in the fact that it has been history that has shown that that is what the federal government has been doing, and in the past that is what they have done for all municipalities suffering or in need of disaster assistance.

He also goes on to state the fact that the history of it is the fact that they have been doing this, and it has been presumed to be the policy of the government regardless of how you interpret the manuals that he has read from both being federal and provincial. The history of it is that they have paid the 90 percent and he agrees to that because he has made that part of his statement.

He also goes on to mention that “WHEREAS the federal government has shifted its policy without first consulting,” and again I would agree with him on that point. Whenever you have an agreement, be it in writing or be by a handshake or by verbal, if that is how the business of the day has been conducted for the last 10 years, you do not just change that policy overnight without any consultation, without any direct input from all the parties affected. Again the member for Dauphin suggests that what he wants to do is resolve the situation. In my mind it sounds like he wants to give up the right on behalf of Manitobans that are suffering and are in need of this disaster assistance, take the federal Liberal point of view, reduce the amount of payments that go to the people that need the disaster assistance and therefore resolve the problem, and he can wash his hands of it and go home and have a nice quiet evening.

I think that is what really has happened is that the federal government, and I am not disputing what the manual says, I am disputing the fact of the way it was done and the way it was interpreted and the way it was presented to the people of Manitoba that need this assistance, and it was not done at a time when we were not faced with a crisis, with a disaster. It was done during it. There was no previous discussion, and he talks about water and flooding and fire. Definitely, when we have a flood we need immediate response to it. We need the municipalities to react to the situation which they know better than anyone else as to how it is to be dealt with. Now, if they have to wait in order to qualify for the funding to go out and private contract this, what benefit, I ask, is it to the people of Manitoba that need it at the time?

* (1650)

I think it is easy to stand back and say that these are the guidelines, but they are not the guidelines that the federal government were using and working within and they were not the guidelines that the provincial government were working within or the municipalities. There was a presumed guideline there that they all worked for. He states it very clearly in his first statement that they had paid 90 percent for the last 10 years. He also says, you know, and again he talks about the shift without consultation. Obviously people will be ill-prepared when that happens, when someone comes up, changes the rules of the game or the way the game is being played overnight or during a situation where people are suffering the most, there is going to be a reaction.

I think we have seen the reaction of the federal government as they force the municipalities to go to private contractors, they force the municipalities to delay the necessary work that has to be done to satisfy the constituents of rural Manitoba, and all of Manitoba I would suggest. I think what has happened is that they have made a decision arbitrarily that has affected a lot of people. I think rather than turning it into a provincial-federal debate, which I think the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) wants to do, and the debate being that he takes the side of the federal Liberal position--I take issue with. I think there are a lot of things in his motion that I could support and I would support, but I think his approach to it is the fact that the Manitoba government should lie down and let the federal government walk all over it, and I am not prepared to see that happen.

He also talks about setting out the dollar amounts before the issue happens. When has that ever happened? Do we know what a catastrophe is going to cost us before it happens? Sometimes we do not know for years after what the effects are and what they will be and how much it is going to cost us. I suggest to you that the honourable member should look at the issues that are on the table as far as the concerns of the people of Manitoba. They want the best deal for the constituents but are unprepared to fight for those best deals for the constituents that they represent. I would suggest that, if the member for Dauphin is prepared to strike a deal with the federal government on how much he is willing to accept, then that should be his prerogative.

What I am saying is that I have people that have suffered and have anticipated a certain amount of funding from the federal government, and this has been denied them based on an interpretation of a rule. Something that has changed overnight that has been in practice for the past 10 years, and again I refer to the honourable member for Dauphin's statements. These are his statements, not mine. It has occurred over the last 10 years that 90 percent of all the work has been paid for by the federal government. How much clearer can that be? Whether it is an interpretation of the guidelines or not, this has been done.

The facts are that the Province of Manitoba has produced documents to convince and to show the federal government where they have made this commitment. I think when that is presented to them in light of the fact that we are in a disaster assistance--and they are denying people this at the time of need, not so much now when everything is said and done, they do it in the middle of the transaction. I think that is what upsets most Manitobans.

I think we have to approach the federal government and ask them to come clean on this. I mean, if we do have to change the guidelines or adapt to the guidelines that are already there, not what has been practised in the past, then let us say so. Let us put it in writing. Let us make the deal on the table. I have no problem with that, but you do not change the game when it is in process. What has happened is that Manitobans have been left out of the process.

To hear the honourable member for Dauphin, to have him stand, rise before the House and speak on behalf of the 57 members of this House who are trying to do the best for the province of Manitoba, accept the federal point of view that this is the way it is going to be, it galls me. It really does.

The time when people are in most need are the times that the honourable member seems to be deserting them and saying, well, this is what the federals have said to me, so this is what I am going to accept.

I would also like to suggest too that the support of the Manitoba government in its position with the federal government does not come directly from the caucus of the government. It comes from all areas of the province. It comes from the municipalities. It comes from the town councils. It comes from the representation, the UMM. It is not something that we woke up one morning and said, hey, we have to settle for this. We are saying to the people of Manitoba that we are prepared to fight. We are prepared to represent your best interests at your worst time of need to say what is right for you, not what somebody interprets the guidelines to be. We are going based on what history has shown us and what the facts are. They have paid in the past, and we feel that they have deserted the province and the people of Manitoba. Definitely, as the honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) says, it is my interpretation. My interpretation of what you said today was presenting the federal Liberal position on the document.

I think that the federal government, based on the information that I have seen and has been presented before them, has acted irresponsibly and, I think, impulsively. I think that, as much as I said earlier on, there are some things that I could support in the honourable member's statement.

(Madam Speaker in the Chair)

I believe that his attack upon the province of Manitoba and the government of Manitoba is unjust. I think it is unfair. I think that perhaps shortly there will be a federal election called, and I am sure that the Liberals will be looking for someone to run in that particular riding. I would certainly be happy to put forward the honourable member for Dauphin's (Mr. Struthers) name.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will close out and thank you for the opportunity.

Introduction of Guests

Madam Speaker: Order, please. I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afternoon, Mr. Grant Hill, federal member of Parliament for the constituency of Macleod in Alberta.

On behalf of all honourable members, I welcome you this afternoon.

* * *

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on this bill brought forward for the member for Dauphin and especially when he is supporting the federal Liberals, like the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) said this afternoon.

I have a copy of a letter that was addressed to the member for Portage la Prairie, the Honourable Brian Pallister, MLA, Minister of Government Services, dated September 17.

Dear Mr. Pallister: Your letter to my colleague the Honourable Marcel Massé concerning the application of federal disaster acceptance to Manitoba in recent years has been referred to me for response as it relates to my responsibilities as the federal Minister responsible for Emergency Preparedness.

I think the federal Liberals, when they took over from the Tory government, there was already a liability by the federal government in regard to emergency services, so it is not just the federal Liberals that should be blamed at this stage today.

Continuing the letter: I had hoped that my responses to your letters of enquiry over the past few months adequately explain the federal government's position with respect to the eligibility for cost sharing of municipal staff and equipment employed in disaster response and recovery operations. The remarks you made in your letter to Mr. Massé seem to indicate that such is not the case. Therefore, let me take this opportunity to again explain the situation.

When it comes to the question of whether or not the nonincremental expenditures incurred by the municipalities in flood response and recovery constitute an expense eligible for cost-sharing under the disaster financial assessments arrangements, neither the guidelines, as you first indicated, nor the interpretation of the guidelines by Emergency Preparedness Canada, as you have subsequently suggested, nor the interpretation of the guidelines by Consulting and Audit Canada, as you claim in your letter to Mr. Massé, has changed in the 26-year history of the DFAA.

Only those disaster-related expenditures on the part of the municipalities which are incremental and compensated by the subsequently--be eligible for cost sharing under the DFAA.

Madam Speaker, your letter also refers to the evidence you have provided to support your position that there has been some change in the application of the guidelines in the case of Manitoba.

* (1700)

The documentation you sent to me would appear to show that the government of Manitoba has compensated municipalities for their nonincremental expenditures, as well as their incremental expenditures incurred in responding to the disasters. This, of course, poses no difficulty to the federal government as it is Manitoba which has the responsibility to design and deliver its program of disaster financial assistance including to the municipalities.

However, the documentation you have provided is not what is required by Consulting and Audit Canada to research your allegation that the guidelines or the interpretation of the guidelines have somehow changed over the years in this regard.

The documentation required is held by your officials and until they make it available, as Manitoba agreed to do in a Memorandum of Understanding signed by your predecessor and mine, it is simply not possible to make any determination in the matter.

Madam Speaker, turning now to the recent disastrous flooding in the province of Quebec, I would like to ensure that you have not been misled by media reports into thinking that the DFAA will not be applied in an even-handed manner in this situation. In fact, notwithstanding the devastating scope of this disaster, the DFAA will be applied according to the guidelines as they are in Manitoba or any other jurisdiction.

Indeed, the remarkable feature of the direct federal assistance to the victims of the disaster and the government of Quebec's response efforts has been the excellent co-operation between the two orders of government resulting in what most observers have described as a rapid, effective and sympathetic response effort.

You mentioned in your letter that you valued the disaster financial assistance provisions that have been designed to spread the cost of these occurrences amongst all Canadians rather than place that burden on those already impacted.

We in the federal government also value the DFAA, which is why we are careful to apply them constantly across Canada to preserve their integrity in other ways as well. It is vital that each order of government involved fulfill its responsibilities in connection with disaster financial assistance. Each province must accept responsibility for the decision it makes about the extent and type of compensation for disaster-related expenditures made at the municipal level.

Attempts to portray decisions made by the provincial government as somehow being attributable to the federal government can only serve to weaken and perhaps ultimately destroy the DFAA.

I trust that the foregoing information will clarify the federal government's position in this matter. The Honourable D. M. Collenette. Thank you.

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Speaker, I want to commend my colleague the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) for bringing this important issue forward, because it seems that we have a federal and a provincial government who cannot agree on who should be paying the bills or at what percentage they should be paying the bills, and municipalities are being caught in the middle, caught holding the bag and paying the expenses much unanticipated.

Madam Speaker, when a disaster strikes a municipality or a town, whether it be flood or fire or tornado, councillors do not think about what the expense is going to be. What they do is move forward and react quickly and ensure that what they are doing is in the best interest of the residents of that area. Whether it means evacuating people or whether it means opening up ditches to allow water to flow, municipalities work quickly to do this. It is unfortunate that the federal and provincial government are now squabbling about who should pay the bills.

This is a very important issue, and I would urge the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister), the minister responsible for disaster assistance, to deal with this in a very quick fashion. We heard a letter that was just read by the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), where he indicates that the federal government is requesting documentation to clarify this. I would urge the minister to take the steps that are necessary so that municipalities and the councillors in rural areas are not caught in the middle, as they have been in this case. We saw it this spring when there was the flooding in southern Manitoba. I saw it in my constituency a few years ago when I happened to be a councillor. There was a fire, and we had to evacuate people very quickly. We had to get equipment in to fireguard the community. As in southern Manitoba, there had to be work done to dike the water.

Municipal councillors do not have the time to say, well, no, we should be contracting this work out, we should not be using our own people, because it does not fall within the guidelines. Those are the kinds of things that have to be cleared up to ensure that municipalities, when the next fire or flood strikes, they do not say, well, we cannot do the work right now because we cannot afford it, we have not the tax base to cover this off, so they would be tempted or feel that because they cannot afford it, they would not do as good a job or they would hesitate to do what was in the best interest of the residents of the area.

I believe that there is stalling on both parts here. The provincial government should be working harder to resolve this, and the federal government should be holding up to their responsibility and reimbursing municipalities at the rate they were before. That is what the guidelines say. The federal government should be doing that, and we have to ensure that they do, but we also have to ensure that the province is fulfilling their responsibility. I just think it is completely unfair that municipalities should be caught in the middle of the squabble.

We have a very similar example that occurred a few years ago. It is still ongoing, and that is the one with compensation for leaf-cutting bees. It was decided that the leaf-cutting bees that were lost in the flood would be compensated. A few people were compensated. I remember the member for Lac du Bonnet, the Minister of Energy and Mines, saying, well, we got the forms out to our people. That is why they were compensated. The rest of the leaf-cutting bee people did not get compensated, and that is still an outstanding issue.

We have raised it with disaster assistance, and we have raised it with the federal government. It is a very similar situation, where the people cannot decide who is responsible. As it is, a certain number of people in the province got their compensation and another group of people have not, and this is going on for close to four or five years now. It is not fair. It is not fair to treat people that way. If you are compensating for one, why cannot you compensate for the rest? I would challenge the minister of disaster assistance to look back at those records and perhaps have a look at how the compensation was paid for those few people who had leaf-cutting bees, whether it was totally paid by the Province of Manitoba and there was no coverage by the federal government. That is what the argument is there. Why is it that people only in the southern part of the province--or as the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) told us then, it was because they got out to get the message to their people that there was such a thing as coverage for leaf-cutter bees.

So I use this as an example where people get caught in a squabble, and it is completely unfair. I would urge the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Pallister) to bring forward the information that the federal government is looking for, take the necessary steps to ensure that this is worked out and that the federal government continues to offer the compensation that they have the responsibility for, and that is 90 percent of all the work that is required to be done after a disaster. That is the responsibility, but because there is a problem here, municipalities are being caught. This government, this minister has the responsibility to ensure that this is worked out and that the Manitoba taxpayers, Manitoba municipalities who put forward their best effort to ensure that their residents are not put at risk during a disaster are not then left holding the bag. That is not fair to them, and this government has a responsibility to deal with that and work out whatever the problems are, but do not use it as an excuse, that the federal government has a responsibility so the provincial government is not going to pay.

Surely, with the responsibility that this person has been given as a portfolio, to look after disaster assistance and the people of the province--and the federal minister has a responsibility to the people of Canada--surely, we should be able to work it out. It is should not come down that we do not want to pay a few dollars because in reality, it is, in the whole scheme of things, not a very big budget we are talking about, but for municipalities who are left holding the bag, it is a big burden on them and with it, we run the risk that municipalities will not do the job that they are supposed to.

* (1710)

I urge the minister responsible to look at the other issues that I have raised and, in particular, the issue with leaf-cutter bees, which we have raised several times with this government and have not been able to get an answer to. In that issue, again, we have been told back and forth that it is the federal government that is not doing their part, and then the federal government says, well, it is the provincial government that is not doing their part. We cannot afford that. We have to have governments working together and we have to have governments fulfilling their responsibility, and by no means should the federal government get off the hook with their responsibility that is outlined within the guidelines. There are guidelines. They have been working for years.

I can remember, as I say, when I was in council, there was never a worry about what--after a certain level, we knew that the federal government was going to kick in with the expenses. This has to be worked out, and I again urge the minister responsible for disaster assistance to arrange whatever meetings are necessary or provide whatever documentation the federal government is requesting and work through this so that when the next disaster strikes this province, and I hope that does not happen for a long time, but when it does, that municipal people know what kind of guidelines they are working under. They should not be left in the uncertainty that they are now. It makes a big difference to a municipality at a time of disaster if there is flooding, and it makes no sense to have to start contracting out when there are people who are trained, people who know the equipment. At a time of emergency, this is what should be able to be done.

So, with those few words, Madam Speaker, I want to again say that I commend my colleague for bringing this resolution forward because it is a very important issue in all parts of the province. This year, it was the Red River Valley and the southern part of the province that was struck by flooding where the problem has arisen. Other years, it has been fire. We do not know which part of the province is going to be struck next. As I say, we hope that it is none, but just recently we had a tornado right in my constituency. It struck a very small group of people, but one community was very much affected, and when it is affected, the people who are on council have to take the lead and take action. That is the security we have to give the people who are working at that level of government, that when they are addressing a disaster that they will not have to worry, that the federal and provincial government are not going to try to pass the buck and avoid upholding their responsibilities.

I urge the minister to move forward, clear up this problem and ensure that the federal government is not off the hook on their responsibilities but, at the same time, that the province fulfills its responsibility to the people of Manitoba who are unfortunate enough to be struck by a disaster.

Hon. Brian Pallister (Minister of Government Services): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Swan River for her comments. They show a depth of understanding of certain aspects of this frustrating issue that was not revealed in the comments of the other members who spoke on the other side of the House.

Frankly, I believe the comments from the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) are an example of a lack of communication among that caucus that I think spells disaster for that caucus if they do not get their act together. Frankly, the member for Dauphin, in his WHEREASes, contradicts his own WHEREASes in his comments. He says that traditionally the federal government reimbursed municipalities up to 90 percent for all work, and in his comments he defends the guidelines. Well, the issue has never been the guidelines. The issue is not the guidelines. It is the interpretation of the guidelines. The guidelines do not spell out that compensation should be cost-shared with municipalities when they use staff.

Yet, the member for Swan River, if she would communicate to the member for Dauphin, would be able to explain to him that though the guidelines do not spell out compensation be paid to the municipalities for municipal staff, she knows full well that such compensation was paid during her tenure on a municipal council. She knows that to be a fact, and so too do many other municipal officials across this province.

The member for Dauphin needs to do a fair bit more research to come to grips with the reality of this issue. It is unfortunate that his comments stray so far from the spirit of what I believe is not a badly worded resolution, because they detract from it, and his attempts to achieve some type of partisan gain from his comments are frustrating to me because they reveal a lack of understanding of the importance of this issue to local governments in this province.

When the members opposite talk about a dispute which is one between the federal and provincial governments, they reveal the fact that they do not understand the essence or the background of this issue. This is not a dispute which isolates the provincial government from involvement with the municipalities. As a matter of fact, we are on side. We are together hand in hand on this issue in this province. The Union of Manitoba Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities and, in fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities have all passed unanimously resolutions in support of our position. So we are together on this. We are united on this issue.

We understand this issue fully and the municipal officials of this province are concerned and need the support of members opposite who must do more homework on this issue so they understand what they say about it.

When the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) stands in this House, and I have a great admiration and respect for the member for St. Boniface, frankly, but when he stands in this House and he reads comments, transcripts of letters mailed by federal members and he does not make his own comments, he does himself an injustice, because what he is doing is, he is simply replicating the misleading and half-understood arguments of a federal bureaucrat who writes that correspondence for the minister, Mr. David Collenette. Mr. Collenette is far too busy with other issues of concern to him to concern himself, unfortunately, with the research that he needs to do about this issue in this province. It is clear he has not taken the time to inform himself of the history of this issue.

Here is the issue in a nutshell, for the members opposite. We have well-established precedents in this province for cost-sharing with municipalities where we have put into our claim to Ottawa for cost-sharing when amounts have exceeded the thresholds which require Ottawa to be involved for municipal use of staff, for municipal use of equipment and machinery. Ottawa has shared and allowed cost-sharing on a framework basis on those claims for decades.

Arbitrarily and unilaterally last year the Emergency Preparedness Canada auditors chose to interpret the guidelines differently without notification to us as a province, without a single piece of correspondence, without the courtesy of a phone call to any municipal level of government in this province. Without any advance notification being forwarded to our province or to any of our localities they arbitrarily made that interpretive change.

What we are arguing is that without such advance notice they are bound to abide by precedent. For how else can municipal leaders function if not by precedent in these circumstances? They should not be expected to understand, to read the minds of federal bureaucrats who choose arbitrarily to change policy. That is not what municipal leaders are elected to do. Municipal leaders are elected to lead locally, and they have done a tremendous job of doing that in the case of the disaster management services they provide to the people of this province.

* (1720)

So when the members opposite make these comments, what they do not understand is the background of this issue, and they need to do some homework. When you blindly accept in a partisan way as a Liberal member the positions of your Liberal colleagues in Ottawa without first consulting the people of this province you do a disservice to the very people who elected you, and you should examine your position, the position you have taken in the House today, and so should the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers), who blindly accepts the fact that he has stated that the guidelines have always been abided by. They have not been abided by. We have had a broad interpretation of the guidelines in most provinces in this country that have experienced disasters over many years.

It is only now that the Liberal government in Ottawa has chosen to narrow the parameters of interpretation. They have done it without consultation. They have done it in a pigheaded and arrogant manner.

You should stand up for Manitobans in this House and you should recognize that fact rather than blindly following some failed bureaucratic ideologue who does not understand the impact this has at the local government level. It is a major impact.

This is not an issue about guidelines, this is an issue about loyalty. This is a dispute about who is responsive to the people who elected them.

My dad used to say that it is very unfortunate that we elect people to go to Ottawa to represent us and so quickly they become representatives of Ottawa to us. This issue has shown me and has shown us on the government side how true that is and how unfortunate that is.

When I see Manitoba members of Parliament, Liberal members of Parliament taking photocopied letters prepared by Emergency Preparedness Canada bureaucrats and putting them in their local paper that say that there has never been a change in the interpretation of the guidelines, I am amazed.

When the position of the federal Liberal government on this issue was read at the Union of Manitoba Municipalities meeting last year in Brandon, the position being, there was no change, there has been no change in the guidelines, in other words, the federal government's initial position was that they had never shared in municipal expenses for staff or equipment or machinery, which members who have served on rural councils know to be false--they know it because they remitted those expense claims. The member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) is one who knows that to be true because she was a rural councillor who had her expenses cost-shared by the federal government when she served on her rural council. There is one example. There are hundreds. We have forwarded them. We have been diligent in this issue. We will not give up on this issue because we know we have the full support of all of the municipalities of this province on this issue. When that position was read out to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities meeting, there was laughter because municipal officials--accountable, democratically elected, responsible fiscal managers--know what the reality is, and you cannot just deny the truth to them and expect to be hailed as anything but a ridiculous person. That is exactly how the position of the federal government should be described. It is ridiculous.

We believe, and I have tried diligently to work with co-operative spirit on the DFAA disputes that we have currently with Ottawa. When we forwarded our notification to them--and we immediately brought in municipal officials to make them aware of these changes--when we forwarded information to them initially to help them understand they were departing from these guidelines, they then came back and requested more information, which we provided, asking for a decision, asking for them to assure our municipal governments that they would not be ignored in this process. We forwarded more information, and they came back to us and asked for more. We forwarded hundreds of examples to them and encouraged them to please come up with one example in the last decade where they have not shared with municipalities for the use of their staff or equipment or machinery. One example we asked them to come up with, and their response was to come back to us and ask for more information.

We have asked them and continually ask them to make a decision on this matter, and, of course, we expect a favourable decision, unlike the member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) who suggested today in the House we should give up on the issue or that we are keeping this going as a partisan issue. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is an issue of integrity and of loyalty and, I believe, of co-operation. We have invited repeatedly the members of Parliament to stand with us and to stand with the people who elected them rather than to stand up for Ottawa to those same people. We have given them that opportunity repeatedly.

For the members opposite, for the edification particularly of Liberal members whom I would encourage to assist us in this, there have been now--this is an issue of credibility because for the federal Liberals there have been three changes in position. I want you to listen carefully to these because the issue of credibility--our position has not changed--is key to this issue. There have been three positions taken by the federal Liberal bureaucrats and the members of Parliament on this issue. Number one, they said that the federal government has never cost-shared on municipal incremental expenses. They said that; that position was read out at the Union of Manitoba Municipalities meeting. As I told you, there was laughter because everyone knew that was not true. So their second position was--they changed positions some weeks later. They said, well, if we did cost-share, we did not know about it, so let us blame our auditors. We could blame our auditors and then we would not be responsible. That was their second position. Their third position was that, if they did cost-share, it was actually an error and, therefore, our municipalities should pay them back. Now that is the position they have today, so now we have three positions, each a major departure from the previous one. There is no credibility on the part of the federal government on this issue, none whatsoever.

This is an issue also about fairness. The member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) talked about how even-handed--he quoted from a document which cited how even-handed, David Collenette is saying, his department has been in the handling of disaster guidelines and disaster assistance in this country. Yet we just had today a visitor, a member of Parliament for Alberta, who knows full well that Alberta has struck a different deal for more generous compensation with the federal government. That was made public in the Winnipeg Free Press some months ago. There is no even-handedness; that is a false statement. We also have seen, in contrast to the threats made by the Minister of National Defence or at least by his bureaucratic representatives in this province--they have threatened, of course, to go back and reaudit all claims and charge our municipalities who have been cost-shared with.

Furthermore, they have said that they do not believe that they want to cost-share with our province until this issue has been resolved on any disaster claims that we have submitted since. Now, we are talking about millions of dollars of claims here. That is arrogance. That is despicable conduct, especially in view of the fact that it has come to public attention this Monday that the federal government has done the unprecedented and advanced over $50 million to another province in our Confederation.

On the one hand saying that you are withholding money from Manitoba, on the other hand advancing millions of dollars to another province does not speak to me of evenhandedness or fairness. It speaks to me of something altogether different. It does not speak well for those who are managing this program if they want it to last as I do and as the people of Manitoba do.

In closing, I want to say that the people of our municipalities and the people of our province who have been impacted by disaster deserve to be treated fairly. They deserve to be treated evenhandedly, but they also deserve representation and that is what they get from the members on this side of the House and that is what they will continue to get. Thank you very much.

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have a few items of House business, and I wonder if there might be agreement not to see the clock until we can conclude that House business.

Madam Speaker: Is there agreement for the Speaker not to see the clock until the House business has been concluded? [agreed]

Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, I want to announce that the Public Utilities and Natural Resources committee will meet tonight at 7 p.m. to consider bills previously referred to the Committee on Municipal Affairs.

The Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will consider Bills 16, 19, 34, 44 and 56. Bills 2, 3 and 43 will remain in the Committee on Municipal Affairs which will also meet tonight at 7 p.m.

Madam Speaker: This evening, previously referred bills in the Committee on Public Utilities will sit concurrently with the Committee on Municipal Affairs. To be considered in the Committee on Public Utilities, Room 254, will be Bills 16, 19, 34, 44 and 56; and in Municipal Affairs, as previously scheduled in Room 255, will give consideration to Bills 2, 3 and 43. Agreed? [agreed]

Committee Changes

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Wellington (Ms. Barrett) for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh), for Wednesday, September 25, 1996, at 7 p.m.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimli): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for River Heights (Mr. Radcliffe) that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs be amended as follows: the member for Minnedosa (Mr. Gilleshammer) for the member for Ste. Rose du Lac (Mr.Cummings); the member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) for the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura); the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer); and the member for Arthur-Virden (Mr. Downey) for the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) (for Wednesday, September 25, 1996, at 7 p.m.).

I move, seconded by the member for Morris (Mr. Pitura), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) for the member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render); the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) (for Wednesday, September 25, 1996, at 7 p.m.).

Motions agreed to.

Madam Speaker: The hour being 5:30 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).