House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I have a number of committees to announce. Firstly, for Friday, September 27--sorry, that has already been announced. Friday, October 4, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the Annual Report of Venture Manitoba Tours.
On Friday, October 11, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m. to consider any reports referred with respect to the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation.
Thursday, October 17, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m. to consider all relevant reports of the Manitoba Telephone System.
On Friday, October 18 at 10 a.m., the Standing Committee on Municipal Affairs will meet to consider all relevant reports of The Forks-North Portage Joint Venture and/or single corporations because they were previously separated.
On Thursday, October 24, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will meet at 10 a.m. to consider the matter of judicial compensation.
On Friday, October 25, the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet at 10 a.m. to consider relevant reports of Manitoba Hydro.
On Thursday, October 31, the Standing Committee on Economic Development will meet at 10 a.m. to consider all relevant reports of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation.
Madam Speaker: The Standing Committee on Economic Development to meet Friday, October 4, 10 a.m., to consider the reports for Venture Manitoba.
Friday, October 11, Public Utilities and Natural Resources committee to meet to consider all reports related to the Manitoba Public Insurance Commission.
Thursday, October 17, 10 a.m., the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources to meet to consider all reports relating to the Manitoba Telephone System.
Friday, October 18, Municipal Affairs, to consider the reports related to both North Portage and The Forks.
Thursday, October 24, 10 a.m., Privileges and Elections to consider judicial compensation. Friday, October 25, 10 a.m., the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources to consider reports related to Manitoba Hydro. Thursday, October 31, 10 a.m., Economic Development to consider all reports related to Manitoba Lotteries.
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, we may have one or two more dealing with annual reports and so on, but I will have to announce those at a later time.
Would you call Bills 49, 52, 53, 21 and 33.
DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS
Bill 49--The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate, firstly, on Bill 49, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act (Loi concernant les offices régionaux de la santé et apportant des modifications corrélatives), standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [interjection] And on the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), standing in the name of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has 24 minutes remaining.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I have concluded my remarks, Madam Speaker, and suggest we call the question.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Madam Speaker, I do believe that this is, in fact, a good motion and should have some sort of debate on it. The regional health authorities that this government has established is a recipe for disaster for health care well into the future for the province of Manitoba. What we are seeing is, by the creation of these super regional health boards, this government attempt to duck behind these unelected individuals in favour of trying to pass through cuts through the boards and deflect any criticism that might come to this government for their decisions.
Now, ultimately, through the legislation you are going to have some individuals elected from within the different communities, but it is the government that is going to be flowing the dollars to the regional health boards and if we take a look in particular--[interjection] Madam Speaker, if we take a look--I was somewhat interrupted and now I am going to have to start that train of thought over again. [interjection]
How long was the question that was being posed? Well, I have had the opportunity actually to talk at length on this particular bill throughout Manitoba, trying to get a better idea in terms of what it is this government is actually doing, but here is what has clearly been demonstrated.
The purpose of this bill is to allow for the government to shuffle any sort of criticism that might be levelled at this government for any cutbacks in health by saying do not blame us--[interjection]
The one minister makes reference to that being mischievous. Yes, the government is being mischievous. What they are saying is, do not blame us for any cuts that are happening out in rural Manitoba or in the city of Winnipeg. Blame the regional health boards. That is really and truly what it is that they are attempting to establish.
Within the Ministry of Health today, they have the administrative capabilities to be able to come up with a plan, a province-wide plan in terms of the future directions of health care. They have at their hand the ability to be able to convene different CEOs of the different health care facilities, whether it is a personal care home facility or a hospital facility. In fact, we will see in the recommendations for changes with the urban hospitals in the city of Winnipeg, that is indeed what the government did. It had individuals throughout the city of Winnipeg sit down and come up with recommendations for this particular government to act on. They do have the abilities currently to be able to come up with a master plan, if you like, that takes into account all the different important components dealing with a health care plan.
* (1440)
One has to ask the question in terms of why, then, do they need to have the regional health boards. In rural Manitoba, it is estimated that this additional level of bureaucracy is going to cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3 million, and that $3 million is not new money that is being put into rural health, that money is coming out of the current budget that has been allocated, the operational budget and some of the surplus that is out there, or some of the reserves, I should say, not necessarily surplus. That is where this additional level of bureaucracy is going to be receiving its funds. So when the government or when the Minister of Finance looks at the Minister of Health and says, look, you have to come up with a 10 percent savings, the Minister of Health then reduces the size of the envelope, and then he leaves it up for the regional health boards to decide where those savings are going to be achieved. So then the health board says, well, because the government is starving us of cash, we are going to have to close down this particular facility or we are going to have to cut back on this particular service.
Madam Speaker, it is a whole lot easier to hold government accountable for its actions if, in fact, they are not trying to sidestep the process. It is easier, for example, for me to question the Minister of Health on a hospital that is being closed down or a service that is being trimmed by asking the minister direct, whether it is through Question Period, whether it is through the Health Estimates. It is much easier for opposition and interest groups and the individual Manitobans, the clients, the patients, if you like, to hold the government accountable than to hold, especially at the beginning, a politically appointed group of individuals accountable. So the government is attempting to sidestep the issue of accountability by the creation of these regional boards, because ultimately I would argue that everything that the minister is hoping to be able to achieve through these regional boards can be achieved today through the Ministry of Health and our community health boards and our community--when I make reference to community health boards I am talking about our hospital institutions, our personal care facilities, our community clinics and so forth.
The big difference, of course, or a second primary concern that we would have, if you like, is that through this legislation what the government is doing is taking the community out of our facilities, because what they are doing is they are marginalizing the importance of our community volunteers, community boards in terms of what it is that they are going to be able to do, the types of services they are going to be able to provide, and I do not think the government has really thought it through in terms of the negative impact that it is going to have.
I have had opportunity to spend some time around the Misericordia Hospital over the last week, and I have seen just the type of effort that is put in, in terms of volunteers. You know, they are wearing the--I believe it is a red jacket. It has nothing to do with the Liberal Party per se, but you can easily identify the volunteers. That is something in which we are going to be losing out, because through the creation of these superboards and the marginalization of the community boards, you are going to see less involvement or you are opening the door for less involvement from the community, direct involvement. We do not believe from within the Liberal Party that that is a positive thing.
Madam Speaker, the more that we can get the community involved in our health care facilities, the better we are going to be at delivering health care services to Manitobans as a whole. So when we look at the two fronts of, well, it is going to be the regional boards are going to be used as a deflection of criticism from the public and others with respect to actions that this government is superimposing on our regional boards, one has to question the need for this bill, and when you start looking at the second front of here is a bill that is going to be marginalizing the community involvement, again you have to start questioning the need for this particular bill. That is why when I see the motion that has been put forward I do not have any problem at all in terms of supporting the motion.
In fact, Madam Speaker, I think there is a very strong case to be made that the regional health boards are not necessary. I have a great deal of respect for the dean of this Chamber. I think that our dean would be telling us that the people who need to be held accountable for what is happening in health care is the government, the Ministry of Health, and anything that is done to take away that accountability is not in the best interest of the public of Manitoba, and that is the reason why, at least one of those two primaries reasons why, we feel that this bill should not only be suspended for six months, that I would have suggested to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) that he just do the honourable thing and withdraw the bill.
I guess the minister can make reference to that other jurisdictions have looked at this particular model. I know, for example, in Alberta that that is, in fact, what they have implemented, are these regional health boards. It is interesting that you will find there is a lot of criticism now from those regional boards, especially from certain members of the boards, to the public, and more so the public, because I cannot cite specific names from some of those regional boards, that the government is starving the system of cash, and they are having to make these decisions on what is happening with the future of health care in the province of Alberta, so they are being used as that buffer zone.
Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party within the province of Saskatchewan has been very critical of Roy Romanow and the New Democratic government in terms of the direction that they are taking health care in the province, and that they are attempting to do the same thing in terms of what this government is doing.
I have not researched it to the degree to find out which or every province or which province across Canada has decided to move in this direction, but I would suggest to you that whatever political party that is out there that is moving in this sort of a direction is really underestimating the abilities of our communities by not allowing for them to remain involved in a very significant way in the evolution of our medicare system. That is why we believe very firmly that when we look at Bill 49 that this is not a positive thing for the province of Manitoba and that the government should not be as concerned in terms of buffering itself from criticism.
* (1450)
We acknowledge, we always have acknowledged that there is a need for change in health care. In fact, we have the Boundary Trails hospital that has been put on hold off and on again in terms of what is going to be happening with respect to it. [interjection] Well, the minister says I want to extend the delay of the Boundary Trails hospital. No. If I was the Minister of Health, I would be saying today that the Boundary Trails hospital facility is a good idea and should be moving ahead. That will result in two other communities losing their hospital facilities, but the idea of having one hospital that is going to be able to provide additional facilities and better facilities because it is going to be drawing on a larger patient base to a certain degree but, most importantly, it is going to provide better quality service for patients. Instead of having to come to the city of Winnipeg to receive a lot of the care because the two other community hospitals do not have the same sort of equipment, more of the doctors in those communities are going to be able to use what would be the Boundary Trails hospital.
By delaying the announcement of the construction of that particular hospital, what you are doing is, you are taking away from many rural Manitobans the opportunity to have a first-class facility in which doctors--because doctors are not just leaving rural Manitoba just because of money. They also want to have facilities that are going to allow them to challenge their abilities in terms of practice, and one of the best things that you can do in order to do that is to have facilities that are modern and by having the Boundary Trails.
Well, the government House leader (Mr. Ernst) said that, look, we are prolonging the process by not allowing this particular bill to pass. Madam Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the biggest problem today with coming to grips with the Boundary Trails hospital is not this bill. The biggest problem is the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this province not recognizing the importance of this facility to the community in which it is going to be serving.
I would even go further, that they are taking away from the community, even if it goes ahead, by not allowing the community to have more involvement in the Boundary Trails proposal. That is, in fact, what this particular bill is going to do, it is going to marginalize the input that the smaller communities are going to have within the facilities.
So more and more Manitobans should be made aware that this government is trying to take the community out of the delivery of health care. We see that by the introduction of this particular bill, because you are marginalizing these community health facilities and future community health facilities, and that is the reason why, as I say, when we look at this particular motion that has been suggested, I guess you know, Madam Speaker, a more appropriate motion would have been to have seen that this bill be dropped from the order paper, that it not be allowed to continue on, because I want, and we will either way ultimately hold this government accountable for what actions are taking place in health care in the province of Manitoba.
We are not going to let the government escape from this Chamber in terms of saying, look, it is the regional health boards that are causing the problems and it is the federal government that is causing the problems because, truth be known, it is the provincial government that is responsible for the administration of health care, and that is the body that is going to ultimately be held accountable.
So even though the government is trying to sidestep that accountability by the creation of these regional health boards, Madam Speaker, we are not going to allow this government to sidestep criticism, and in many areas I like to believe, as a Liberal, we provide constructive criticism. We are not going to allow this government to sidestep accountability when it comes to the issue of health care. So even if they are successful at establishing these super regional boards at the expense of our communities, our intention is to hold this Premier (Mr. Filmon) and future governments accountable for whatever is happening in health care throughout the province of Manitoba.
We would like to see more of the government members come to the realization that the opposition, combined opposition, it appears, the conclusion that we have reached is that ultimately this particular piece of legislation is not in the best interests of Manitobans.
What I will do is that after this particular motion has been dealt with, if, in fact, we go on to debate the bill, I will put a few more words on the record at that time. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act be not now read a second time but be read this day six months hence.
* (1500)
Voice Vote
Madam Speaker: All those in favour of the motion, please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
Madam Speaker: All those opposed, please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
Madam Speaker: In my opinion, the Nays have it.
Formal Vote
Mr. Lamoureux: I would request for Yeas and Nays, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members. Oh, we cannot. Does the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) have support?
Some Honourable Members: Yes.
Madam Speaker: A recorded vote has been requested. Call in the members.
Order, please. The question before the House is the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway), on Bill 49, The Regional Health Authorities and Consequential Amendments Act, be not now read a second time but be read this day six months hence.
Division
A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:
Yeas
Ashton, Cerilli, Chomiak, Dewar, Doer, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Friesen, Gaudry, Jennissen, Kowalski, Lamoureux, Lathlin, Mackintosh, Maloway, Martindale, Mihychuk, Reid, Robinson, Sale, Santos, Struthers, Wowchuk.
Nays
Derkach, Downey, Dyck, Enns, Ernst, Filmon, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Laurendeau, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Newman, Pallister, Penner, Pitura, Praznik, Radcliffe, Reimer, Render, Rocan, Stefanson, Sveinson, Toews, Tweed, Vodrey.
Madam Deputy Clerk (Bev Bosiak): Yeas 23, Nays 27.
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Madam Speaker, I was paired with the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings). Had I not been paired, I would have voted yea.
Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): I also was paired. Had I not been paired, I would have supported the motion.
Madam Speaker: I declare the amendment accordingly lost.
To resume debate on second reading, Bill 49, standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans). Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Speaker, I just want to conclude some remarks on Bill 49 at this point in time. I am just rising and wanting to speak on Bill 49.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to make a long speech. I just want to put if you like--[interjection] Seeing as the members seem to be somewhat disappointed, we could extend it a bit if they so desire to a 30-minute speech.
Madam Speaker, I just wanted to once again illustrate two or three, possibly four points. First and foremost, what we are seeing is a creation of yet another level of bureaucracy, and that bureaucracy is going to have to be financed. Those dollars are not new dollars. So when we look at that, that is not a better way of spending dollars in terms of delivering health care services, primarily because these regional health boards are there for two real reasons, first and foremost to deflect criticism against this government on decisions that it is making. Those decisions will be deflected to, do not blame us, blame the regional boards for winding down this service or closing down this particular facility. Do not blame us.
Madam Speaker, it is a government that does not like being held accountable for actions or the lack of actions that it takes. It constantly wants to be able to duck responsibility. Now it has two areas to pass on the responsibilities, or at least to avoid responsibility. One is now to blame the federal government, and the other one, of course, is to blame these new super regional boards.
We know full well and believe that this government is the one that is responsible for administration of health care, and we will hold this government accountable for the actions and future actions on what is happening in health care in the province of Manitoba.
The second point, as I illustrated in speaking to the motion prior, and that was that you are marginalizing the community involvement in our health care facilities and in future health care in the province of Manitoba by the creation of these super boards. We believe that if we want to have a healthier Manitoba, that the more we get Manitobans involved in the process, the better it will be. By marginalizing that community involvement in terms of being able to make some decisions by taking a sense of ownership at the local community level, we are not going to be able to, to the same degree as we are today, attract volunteers into the process, and we find indeed that that is unfortunate.
In a nutshell, this bill creates these regional boards. The regional boards are not necessary. It is virtually 100 percent duplication. The Ministry of Health does have the resources to work with the current CEOs and others to ensure that there is an overall plan. We believe that the government is responsible for developing that plan and that they should not try to pass off their responsibilities on such an important issue of health care.
To conclude, the best thing I can say is from the Liberal Party's perspective, our intentions are to hold this government accountable for all of the actions that are being taken with respect to the administration of health care in the province of Manitoba. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans).
* (1510)
Bill 52--The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act
Madam Speaker: To resume second reading debate on Bill 52, on the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik), The York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'accord de mise en oeuvre de la première nation de York Factory relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 52, also known as the York Factory First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act.
Along with other members of this House, I was privileged to attend the signing ceremony that occurred last December 8 at York Landing. I will certainly never forget that chilly plane ride from Thompson to York Landing in the company of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski). The weather was so bad I believe, in fact, that the airport in Winnipeg was closed, but we dutifully went to York Landing anyway, and we certainly enjoyed the hospitality we received.
On this side of the House, we are pleased that an agreement has been reached with the York Factory First Nation. I know that Chief Eric Saunders, the council and the elders have worked long and hard to achieve this agreement. Unfortunately, some of the elders who have worked for years seeking to address past grievances, seeking to address injustices, are no longer with us, but their memory will always remain with us.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
All of us know or should know about the social and human costs related to past hydro developments. We know that past dislocations of the lives and the cultures of the northern aboriginal people due to the hydro flooding cannot be rectified by a single dollar figure, by a single agreement. The damage was too deep for that. Although the agreement may not be entirely what the Split Lake people or the Nelson House people or the people of York Landing wanted or had in mind, still the communities need and deserve the funds that will flow from these agreements. And Norway House and Cross Lake too, although they have not yet signed flood agreements, need and deserve adequate funds to compensate those communities for hydro development damage done to them.
Times are tough and especially so in the North, and I am sure that the leadership and the elders of York Landing, despite their best efforts, have settled for this agreement, although it may not be the deal they originally wanted, but it is a deal they negotiated. I am sure, although the government sees it entirely as a deal, the northern people see it as much more than that. They see it as an extension of Treaty No. 5, as a modern-day treaty. It is regrettable, I guess in one sense, when dollar figures are finally negotiated, that the lawyers and the professional negotiators walk away with the lion's share proportionally and that the money, the full amount of the money does not actually go to the people who should be receiving the money.
Like other isolated northern communities, the members of the York Factory First Nation at York Landing are still suffering from the less than benign neglect characteristic of this government. Cuts in health care and educational programs such as Access have hurt these northern communities such as York Landing. Traditional trapping and hunting are greatly declining, and some of this is due to falling fur prices or because of animal rights activists and perhaps due to other factors, but some of this is due also to past hydro development. At any rate, there is limited domestic fishing at York Landing now, there is poor quality of fish and, in fact, poor quantity, and I am sure this is related to previous flooding. In this respect I would like to mention the fact that, since both the provincial and the federal government bailed out of freight subsidies for fishermen, things have got even tougher for anyone wanting to fish in northern Manitoba.
In terms of trapping, the 310 residents of York Landing have access to only one trapline, trapline No. 13, which is allocated to the Split Lake resource area. As you perhaps know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the resource base of the people at York Landing is much closer to the coast, so they are living on very cramped quarters, and the Treaty Land Entitlement process, although in process, has not been completed which would give them a larger land base.
There are very limited economic opportunities in York Landing and this is partially due to isolation. In order for York Landing to have access to a road system they would have to get to Highway 280 at Split Lake, and that means that the residents have to travel in the summer across a lake by ferry. That takes two hours one way, and the ferry only runs three times a week. So you have to imagine that if you want to go shopping, if you live in York Landing and you want to go shopping in Thompson and you take off on Monday, you cannot get back until Wednesday. In winter, there is a rugged 38-kilometre winter road that connects York Landing to the road connection access at Split Lake.
What is really necessary and what would be most desirable and certainly would happen if these people lived in southern Manitoba is an all-weather road. This would give York Landing access to the rest of Manitoba, and this would involve the building of only 25 to 30 kilometres of road. It would also involve, if that were to happen, the use of a ferry, but this would be a very short-run ferry across a very narrow stretch of water. It would certainly help the people of York Landing have closer links with the rest of Manitoba. It would certainly significantly reduce food costs in northern Manitoba in that area.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are cautiously optimistic about Bill 52. We know that, by itself, this agreement does not address all the negative consequences that the community has experienced because of previous hydro developments, but it is a start. Beyond Bill 52, the provincial government still needs to address the long-standing previous neglect that has seriously hurt all northerners, not just aboriginal northerners. I am talking specifically about roads. We mentioned Highway 280, but certainly everyone knows about the sad flight of Highway 391, and I think the government must realize that without decent road connections how can there ever be serious economic development in northern Manitoba. The less than benign neglect of this government, its cuts to health and education programs, are well documented and they have hurt northern Manitobans.
It is in the interest of all Manitobans, especially southern Manitobans, to ratify Bill 52, and Bill 53 as well, as soon as possible. The agreements upon which these bills are drafted have been approved for some time now. In fact, the agreement upon which Bill 52 is drafted was signed over nine months ago in York Landing.
I will now conclude, knowing that some of my fellow northern MLAs, certainly the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), will also wish to speak on Bill 52 and that another northern MLA, I am sure, will wish to speak to Bill 52 in the near future. Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I most definitely do wish to speak on this particular bill, both as a northern MLA and as the MLA for the York Factory First Nation, the community of York Landing.
I want to indicate to members of the House that certainly this a significant bill in the sense that it marks a lot of work by all parties involved. Particularly, I want to pay tribute to the many people in the York Factory First Nation, who have worked on this since the signing in 1977 of the Northern Flood Agreement. I particularly want to pay tribute to one of the longest serving chiefs in the province, Chief Eric Saunders, who I have a very good working relationship with, the members of his council, the members of the councils that worked with Chief Saunders, and with the community in resolving this outstanding dispute.
I want to put a couple of remarks on the record, too, because I think one has to understand that the northern flood circumstances that we saw were not strictly the only difficulties faced by, the only challenge, faced by the community of York Landing. Mr. Deputy Speaker, it should be noted that the York Factory First Nation, the very name of the band, is reflective of its history. It was originally located at York Factory, was relocated in the mid-1950s and relocated to an area that is close, of course, to Split Lake and at the time was considered to be a better location.
* (1520)
I want to indicate, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there are many people in the community who are concerned about the relocation. It is a relocation that does not receive the same kind of attention that some others have across Canada, but when one looks at the circumstances and the very difficult conditions that were encountered by the people of York Factory when the relocation took place, I think that has to be recognized.
There is also concern, quite frankly, Mr. Deputy Speaker--and I have done some research into this. I checked with the research that is available that indicates that many of the people in the committee at the time did not want to relocate. In fact, there was very clear indication that many of the elders did not want to relocate from their traditional area of York Factory, and I hope to be able to work with the community now that this matter has been resolved to perhaps re-open, before many of the elders that are remaining pass away and are no longer with us, the whole question of relocation, because there has never been a real acceptance of the fact that many people relocated in very difficult circumstances, very tough circumstances in those times. Many of the people in the community are concerned, for example, that the relocation was not because of the best interest of the community but because it was easier and cheaper to access medical care, that the federal government was looking more at its own cost than the betterment of the community.
I am pleased that one side element to this agreement, one component of the agreement, has been the allocation of various areas in the North, hold areas previously, now settlement areas under the Northern Flood Agreement, including land in York Factory. What is happening is many people from the community are now travelling to York Factory, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and have been trapping in that area, recreating many of the traditional patterns, traditional usage patterns. I think that is something that is very, very important for the community because it has a long history. I must say, I have never been able to go to York Factory. I have flown over York Factory, but it is one of my own dreams to be able to visit York Factory, an area that has a great deal of significance for the people of York Factory First Nation and also for the province as a whole, because it was obviously one of the first areas of contact between aboriginal people and Europeans. It played a very important part in the fur trade. I look forward--and I do not know if the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) has had the opportunity to visit.
An Honourable Member: Yes, we were there together.
Mr. Ashton: Well, York Factory. I am talking about York Factory itself. The minister has, of course, been in York Landing itself, but it is something I would certainly like to see.
I want to once again, in conclusion, congratulate the community. I want to indicate that as in any agreement, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there are certain items which are agreed upon wholeheartedly and perhaps some others that are agreed upon reluctantly. I do not mean to take away from any aspect of this agreement, but I do want to point out that there is still a concern in this and other communities about the whole question of the status of this agreement, whether it is simply an agreement or a modern-day treaty. Notwithstanding that, the most important thing we can do for the people of York Factory First Nation, the residents of York Landing, I think, is to congratulate them on their efforts and hope that with the settlement, we can now see a new era of hope and opportunity in York Landing, a community that has been through a great deal. I hope that we can rededicate ourselves to that development in York Landing and perhaps some recognition of the many elders who are no longer with us who suffered the impacts of the flooding and those that worked on the negotiation of the Northern Flood Agreement originally in 1977 and throughout the years.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that rededication will include looking at some such proposals from the community to establish an all-weather road connection. They are currently served only by ferry and winter road. There is also a suggestion that has been brought forward by the neighbouring community of Ilford, the War Lake band, suggesting putting a road between York Landing and Ilford, and I would like to point out that was originally a plan. Not only that, in 1977, the tenders had been left for that. The then newly elected Conservative government of Sterling Lyon cancelled that road.
Either route would give greater access to the outside world. In the case of the connection into Ilford, it would allow people in York Landing to connect directly to the bayline, and in the case of the all-weather road, it would allow people of the community to connect directly onto Highway 280 where it does access via Split Lake.
There are other questions in the community related to, most importantly, economic development. There are issues now related to some of the movement to self-government, particularly the health transfer. I know education is a significant priority of the community. In fact, I have had the opportunity to attend the graduation of the school this past summer, and that was certainly indicated at the time.
So even though this is a significant event, I hope that it will be taken in spirit as being a commitment by all parties involved to improvements for the community of York Landing, whether it be roads or in terms of health or education or the other items I have mentioned.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate the people of York Factory First Nation and all of the people who were involved throughout the years from all levels of government, from Manitoba Hydro and from the community. It is certainly a significant event for the community of York Landing. Thank you.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just wanted to acknowledge support for this particular bill. I had the opportunity, primarily because the provincial minister responsible made some space available for me, to be able to fly out and be a witness to this particular signing ceremony, and it was very much appreciated.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that after the signing ceremony there was another ceremony that was performed where we got to see a lot of the heritage of a very proud, and justifiably so, people. It was the first opportunity that I had to be at Nelson House and have the opportunity to be able to meet--[interjection] At York Landing. [interjection] Well, York Landing--the remarks I am making are for both Bill 52 and Bill 53. This way I will not have to stand up for both.
Unfortunately, I was not able to be there for York Factory and the signing ceremony there. I am not really too sure in terms of the date if that was shortly thereafter or if it was prior, but I do know that there must have been a great deal of effort put in from all parties in order to achieve this particular agreement. Over the years I am sure there would have been a lot of discouraging moments and times, because this dates back for a couple of decades plus. It is nice to see positive pieces of legislation of this nature come through the Chamber, because it really highlights that at least some people have been hard at work in trying to be able to resolve some of the problems that are out there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was quite pleased to at least be one of the witnesses to this signing, not necessarily an official witness, but at least in the background watching such an important step for, in particular, the Nelson House First Nation. I know with individuals such as the chief and counsellors like David Spence, that we will see many more negotiations taking place to resolve the many other issues that need to be addressed within the aboriginal community.
With those few words, we are quite delighted to see both Bill 52 and Bill 53 and applaud the efforts of those people from the past who are maybe not with us here today, to those individuals that were there right from the word go to the end of the actual signing of both agreements, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and all those that were involved, hearty congratulations on an effort well done, job well done.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
* (1530)
Bill 53--The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 53, The Nelson House First Nation Northern Flood Implementation Agreement Act (Loi sur l'accord de mise en oeuvre de la première nation de Nelson House relatif à la convention sur la submersion de terres du Nord manitobain), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill, both once again as a northern MLA and also the MLA representing Nelson House.
I had the opportunity to attend the signing ceremony in Nelson House earlier this year, and I must say, I was one of the witnesses, in fact, witnessed the minister's signature, and I want to indicate it was, I thought, a very excellent opportunity to recognize the efforts of all the parties involved.
In fact, all parties were in attendance with the exception of one, and I will only make one brief comment indicating that I was very disappointed that the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs did not attend the signing. Apparently there was some dispute over this and, in fact, I know some concerns were expressed by members of the band, the band council about the dispute. In fact, Councillor Darcy Linklater wrote an open letter expressing his concerns, and I want to say that, because I think it was unfortunate, given the significance of this occasion for Nelson House, that all parties did not attend the signing ceremony in Nelson House.
The provincial minister was present, as were the Hydro officials. Certainly I was there along with the MLA for Rupertsland (Mr. Robinson), the MLA for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) was there. I think it was a very significant event and it is very unfortunate that that one element did perhaps distract somewhat from what was a very significant ceremony. I want to indicate too that what I particularly appreciated--
An Honourable Member: Where was Elijah?
Mr. Ashton: Well, the minister asked where Elijah was, and I think, to be fair, he was in South Africa at the time, not in Nelson House. I do not mean this as a personal shot at either the member of Parliament or even the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs. I would have thought it would have been appropriate to have somebody there from the federal level, and I am just recognizing some of the concern that was expressed in the community.
I want to indicate too that what I thought was particularly appropriate was the tribute that was paid to past chiefs, councillors who worked on the original Northern Flood Agreement--in fact, a number of past chiefs were there--and also the many councillors, many elders in the community, many community members who worked so hard on the negotiations leading up to the signing of the Northern Flood Agreement in 1977 and the subsequent negotiations from that point on.
While there are obviously certain things that people would have liked to have seen that have not happened, it is still a very significant event, and the real concern I have, as I am sure everyone did, is that there were many elders who have since passed away who have not had the opportunity to see the realization of this dream of having this flood agreement finally settled.
I want to indicate, as well, that there are many concerns in the community, and I am hoping in the same spirit as I mentioned a few minutes ago that there will be a new direction involving Nelson House, the community of Nelson House, from other levels of government, perhaps in keeping with the spirit of the signing of this agreement, and I would hope it would start with Highway 391. One should be aware that Highway 391 is probably, along with maybe the highway from Cross Lake to Norway House, Highway 373, you could argue, which was the worst highway in the province? [interjection] In the country, says the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen), who represents communities further north. [interjection] Well, there is some debate over whether it is a cow track or not. I think maybe a moose track might be more appropriate in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think it is unacceptable that in the 1990s we have such poor conditions on northern roads. By the way, I want to stress that in Nelson House's case, that is the only access the community has. There is no airstrip; there is no rail line. There is only Highway 391. I travel into the community on a regular basis. I drive in just like anyone else. I would invite members opposite to look at Highway 391 and look at the condition it is in. I would also like them to identify why we have such a poor highway in northern Manitoba. Perhaps it is in the words of the former Minister of Northern Affairs, the current Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), who in one of his more lucid moments in this House said, he suggested that perhaps that northerners did not vote right, reflecting on the fact that people in northern Manitoba have elected New Democrats with only one exception since 1969--one exception, 1977 to 1981, the former Conservative member for Thompson.
I am not just talking about this in a strict political sense. I think that the Conservatives have politicized the whole issue of northern roads. The reason I am saying this is that because the people of northern Manitoba--well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I could use some more colourful language, but they have had it up to here. They are tired of being ignored. They are tired of governments such as this government taking the resources from northern Manitoba, as is the case with Manitoba Hydro, and with northern communities not only facing the results of that--in this case, Nelson House had the flooding; that is why we are dealing with the Northern Flood Agreement--they take the resources, but when it comes to getting the money back into northern Manitoba, that is another question. We have seen this government spend as little as 5 percent, in fact less than 5 percent, of the entire construction budget in northern Manitoba. That simply is not fair. All one has to do is travel the northern roads.
What I find particularly frustrating is that when there have been meetings held, and I give credit, by the way, to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) because he travelled--and I hope the Minister of Northern Affairs will hear this, and I hope that his colleagues will hear this, too. He travelled. Yes, he went to Nelson House for the signing of the Northern Flood Agreement, but he was at a meeting of northern leaders, community leaders, in 1995 at which the invited guest, the Minister of Highways, did not show up.
I must say I felt sorry for the Minister of Northern Affairs. He had to answer all sorts of questions on behalf of the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay). I know he was probably somewhat surprised himself because--
An Honourable Member: Maybe he should cross the floor.
Mr. Ashton: I do not know if we would want the Minister of Northern Affairs to cross the floor, but we know at least he took the flack, he took the heat for members. He was there; the Minister of Highways was not. Again this summer, meetings were held and there were a number of MLAs there from our side. In fact, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Jennissen) was there. There were a number of other northern MLAs who were present. I want to say once again it is unfortunate the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay) does not see fit to go and deal face to face, head to head, with some of the concerns.
The Minister of Northern Affairs, I know he was somewhat distracted, but I was not critical of the Minister of Northern Affairs. You know, when you see what has happened, when people in Nelson House do not even have the most basic road service, what frustrates me is when there is no long-term plan. I must admit, this year there were finally some signs of hope. There was a $3.5-million 14-kilometre upgrading west of Mile 20 but no long-term plan, no commitment to sealcoating that stretch next year, no commitment in five years to bring it up to date. There is a written commitment from the minister dated December 1995 to have a hard surfacing of the road but no plan, no plan whatsoever, and this is what frustrates people in Nelson House. People have absolutely had it up to here with having resource revenues taken from northern Manitoba and not even the most basic money put back in to do such things, the most basic of things, to build infrastructure and to build roads.
You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the sad part is that many people in the community of Nelson House, virtually every family has lost people due to accidents on the road. I am not suggesting that each and every accident was the result of the condition of the highway. Obviously, there are other factors, but I went with the Department of Highways a few years ago, and I got their statistics, not mine, their statistics, and it showed the level of fatalities on Highway 391 was three times the provincial average--Department of Highways statistics--that there were more accidents on that road. You just have to talk to anyone who drives on it on a regular basis.
I am not even talking about the cost to property, as well. Most trucks and vehicles that go on Highway 391, they do not last very long, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because they get literally ripped apart because of the condition of the road, and the technology is there. The new sealcoat just south of Nelson House is far superior than even the sealcoat that was put on the Sawannee section just south of Leaf Rapids even a few years before. They are building tougher sealcoats to reflect northern conditions.
* (1540)
Give the Department of Highways the tools and they will do the job. Give them the funding and they will do the job. It is fine for us here to say that we have reached an historic occasion with the signing of the flood agreement, and I agree with that. This is historic, but will things have really changed if we sign this agreement and then we go and ignore Nelson House again, as this government is doing on northern roads? No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and what is particularly frustrating in Nelson House is that many of the early discussions involving the Northern Flood Agreement talked about such things as putting in road access.
They did, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was part of the whole package. People in Nelson House, after suffering because of the flooding of the Burntwood River, said that they wanted the most basic type of facilities that people had available to them. The road in Nelson House that was built in the early 1970s needed to be upgraded. Everybody knew that and I credit the government of the day for building it. It was certainly needed at the time. By the way, it was an NDP government. You do not have much difficulty figuring out which government has built highways in northern Manitoba in the last number of years because it is only one type of government. It is the NDP government, probably one of the reasons why people have elected NDP MLAs in northern Manitoba in every election except one in 1977 in one constituency--because we do not just talk about the North at election time, and when it comes to being in government or opposition, we put our words into action.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will tell you how bad it got in this past election. I realize I am getting political here, but, you know, the band sent a message to the Conservative candidate that he was not even welcome on the reserve, because of some comments made by the Premier (Mr. Filmon). That is how bad and that is sad, and I look to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) because I believe he has made a sincere effort with Nelson House to get into the community. He was there for the signing, and I credit him for that, and he has taken an interest in the North Flood Agreements, but he cannot do it alone, and I look to other members across the way.
I thought at some point in time members across the way would at least make some effort. They routinely talk about it during elections and effectively hang their candidates out to dry each and every time there is an election. Their vote dropped to the lowest level in 25 years in northern Manitoba this time in Thompson--25 years, the lowest ever. I remember, I pointed to the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) and I said to the Deputy Premier, look at all your work in the North since Minister of Northern Affairs, and he pointed to the now-Minister of North Affairs and passed the blame onto the current Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik).
I tend to think that a lot of it started with the Minister of Northern Affairs who talked about not voting right, not the current Minister of Northern Affairs. I believe he has made a real effort, and I guess one of the reasons I am saying this today, and I mentioned this in my Member's Statement a couple of days ago was because it is symbolic with the passage of Joe Borowski this week, because I remember 1969. I remember being a kid growing up in Thompson. I remember when Joe Borowski said, enough of this, we are going to build northern roads, and he did, and he put a two-lane bridge across the Burntwood River, and he put in Highway 6, and he paved Highway 391, and, by the way, he built the Nelson House Road, as well, and we need that spirit back.
We need that spirit back. You know, northern Manitoba has a lot to offer the rest of the province. Well, we are already paying a lot in the way of our mining revenues, our forestry revenues and hydro. All we are asking for is that same kind of spirit that Ed Schreyer and Joe Borowski and the other members of that first government, the NDP government in 1969, brought to northern Manitoba. You know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, not a month goes by during which I do not travel into communities and I do not hear someone say, the last time I remember anybody doing anything for the North is when the NDP was in power. They talk not only about the Pawley government. I was in Pikwitonei recently and people talked about when Ed Schreyer was Premier when he went to that community and, when the community needed things, they went to that government, they went to Ed Schreyer, and things happened because the NDP cared about northern Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, now is the time. We have a tremendous opportunity now to look to the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik). We have the signing of this agreement, and I know there are people in the community, and he knows, who do not agree with it not being a modern-day treaty in the interpretation of the government. I know that there is some concern on that, and I have talked to some people involved in the negotiating process.
This is a significant event, but why do we not treat it as a chance for a new beginning because as much as I suppose politically it is advantageous being a New Democrat when you have governments like this which ignore the northern roads and other significant issues, I would not mind if they even tried once in a while for even just the most crass of political reasons just to do something to bring us into fairness, give us a fair degree of help.
The Minister of Northern Affairs knows that people are frustrated over the roads, and I would think he would say that more needs to be done. I think even the Minister of Highways (Mr. Findlay)--[interjection] There was a project. He is right and I acknowledge that. I acknowledged it. I think the minister will acknowledge, there is a long way to go, and he will note from my comments that I was not being critical of him per se. I think he has made an honest effort in northern Manitoba.
If the Minister of Highways would start by travelling in the North on the highways when there are difficult conditions--
An Honourable Member: In fairness, he had to find that $4 million this year.
Mr. Ashton: And he found it. I am not being critical. I am just saying, you know, a journey starts with one small step, Mr. Deputy Speaker, one small step; I agree with him.
You know, I remember when the previous Minister of Highways went to Cross Lake, it is still part of the local mythology now. It is funny. He went in there and it was one of the classic situations where the road was wet and he drove in. I believe he went in with his wife, as well, that time, but the only thing you could see out of the car was, there was this little windshield wiper just covered in mud. This, by the way, was the middle of summer, okay, and he met with the band council, and you know what he said? He said, this road is in pretty rough shape. He said, you know, we should do something about this. This was great. This was the Minister of Highways.
Everybody was saying, great, we finally, finally, have a Minister of Highways who is going to do something. Guess what happened, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) pulled him out of that portfolio a couple of weeks later.
Now, some people in Cross Lake to this day still think that Albert Driedger, the former Minister of Highways, was pulled out of that department because he probably dared to go to a cabinet meeting and say, you know, those roads are in bad shape. [interjection] Well, the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) says, it is not true. Perhaps he should explain to the people in Cross Lake why they are still waiting to get their road fixed now and why they have to go through periods like they did last year when the whole road was closed. I could spend most of the speaking time on this bill and other bills on the condition of the roads, because that is one of the grievances. We dealt with Northern Flood, let us deal with some of the other grievances in northern Manitoba.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I just want to finish off by saying that I think there is an opportunity in northern Manitoba. It is funny how sometimes you do not see that until you almost hit rock bottom. Right now in northern Manitoba we are faced with the situation where our roads are in terrible condition. Yes, there was a little bit of effort this year. I acknowledge that. We are faced with losing the Sherridon line. We are faced with losing the bayline. Our entire rail structure could be gone within a year or two.
Our Port of Churchill, there is no million tonnes of grain going through it like the Liberal government promised in the election. It is in desperate shape. We are seeing incredibly difficult situations in some way, but maybe you have to come close, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to realizing what you have got, close to losing it before you recognize how important it is.
I do not want to lose our rail system; I do not want to lose our northern roads; and I certainly do not want to lose the economic impact for northern Manitoba and the rest of the province with our mines and our forestry and our hydro. But we are close to it. We lose the rail line, and we keep the roads the way they are right now--Lynn and Leaf are in a very difficult situation, and the minister knows that. We are in a situation where if that goes, what next? What about Gillam? What about Churchill? What about many of the northern communities? How are we going to expand mining in northern Manitoba or forestry or anything or hydro if you cannot even have a guarantee of infrastructure? It may be pulled out from under you by shortsighted governments. I believe that maybe out of the most adverse times you can get a sense of what is really important in this province.
I will say this, and I realize I have some personal bias on this, but if it was not for northern Manitoba, this province would be a lot worse off, not only in terms of economics today but in terms of the future. I believe, though, you cannot just take the North for granted; you have to do a lot more, you have to address the grievances. This is one grievance that has been addressed. I commend all of those who were part of dealing with this, but until we get decent roads, until we can keep our rail lines, we are not going to keep northern Manitoba at the level it is and we are not going to develop our future here in Manitoba. Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: As previously agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Bill 21--The Oil and Gas Production Tax and Oil and Gas Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik), Bill 21, The Oil and Gas Production Tax and Oil and Gas Amendment Act (Loi concernant la taxe sur la production de pétrole et de gaz et modifiant la Loi sur le pétrole et la gaz naturel), standing in the name of the honourable member for Osborne (Ms. McGifford). Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, leave is denied.
Ms. MaryAnn Mihychuk (St. James): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to put on record a few comments about this bill and about the oil and gas industry in Manitoba in general.
It is a pleasure to stand and speak to the bill. The bill is one that we are supporting. It makes the administration more expedient, more efficient, and we are for that, but what we are not for is jump-to-the-pump gas policies that the minister has proposed in the last couple of years. This is quite incredible, and just to put this in context, those were called jump-to-the-pump government policies by this minister in terms of oil and gas policies.
* (1550)
The fact is Manitoba has a diverse resource collection; part of it is oil and gas reserves. We wish we had more, but it is very limited, unfortunately. Although the minister would hope that we would have enormous reserves, I believe his imagination is probably greater than reality. In fact, Manitoba's reserves are estimated at about 10 years. That is a fairly limited amount of oil and gas. The people in Calgary tell us that we have a little puddle, and we are not taken all too seriously, but we are glad to be in the business, as well.
It employs approximately 250, creates 250 person-years. Those are not necessarily full-time work, but there are people working in the petroleum industry. There are actually less than 40 million barrels of oil and gas in Manitoba, and when you look at reviews of the oil industry, we can see a steady decline in Manitoba's reserves since about the mid-60s. That is a concern to us and it should be a concern to us. These are nonrenewable petroleum resources. They do not fall from the sky. They do not go over dams and we can recover the energy from these sources. Once it is extracted, it is through.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, that is why I am going to put on the record, the concern here is that, in fact, Manitoba imports all of its nonrenewable energy sources from other provinces. The question becomes a matter of government priority and policy. If you look at, in fact, the department's mandate for the petroleum sector--let me just put this on the record--the objectives are to provide for and encourage safe, efficient development of Manitoba's oil and gas resources in accordance with the principles of sustainable development. I am not sure that the minister heard that. In fact, I am not sure that the government understands the second part of this statement.
We are concerned about a limited nonrenewable resource being extracted as fast and furious as possible out of Manitoba. That policy was instigated by this government. That policy was encouraged actually by a freebie, a giveaway, grants to the oil industry.
Here we see a Free Press clipping that was, Free Money Talks. People in the oil industry are not familiar with handouts because it is, I mean, a competitive industry. In fact, the minister is quoted as saying, you know, we have to play with the big boys and we have to attract customers. Well, the fact is that the province is handing out a million dollars to companies hunting for black gold in Manitoba's tiny oil patch and Alberta companies are leading the rush for free cash.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am on the record as supporting mineral exploration programs in the North. We know that there are vast resources in the North that are not developed and we have significant potential. However, that is not the same situation for the oil and gas reserves in Manitoba. The reserves are fairly well defined, and what we are talking about in these incentives is rapid extraction of a nonrenewable resource, breaking the fundamental principle of sustainable development which the First Minister (Mr. Filmon), the Premier of our province stands up and says he supports.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, is the province kidding about sustainable development? Are these round tables that we participate in in all different kinds of sectors a joke? The minister has now decided he is going to extract the oil and gas reserves as fast as possible. That is why I call the minister the jump-to-the-pump minister. He will pump it out as fast as possible. That does not follow the principles of sustainable development, and it does not follow the objectives or the goals of the department itself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, those are my concerns. On the record, we are proud to have a diverse economy. Oil and gas is one sector that we can be proud of as a government, as an NDP government. We looked at sustained management of our resources, and there was not accelerated extraction. In fact, when you look at the goals of sustainable development, under energy management it suggests, under Policy 1.2, that renewable energy resources shall be managed in a sustained manner while nonrenewable energy resources shall be managed so their productive life is extended. Extended, not shortened. Why would the minister want to create a policy that is extracting our nonrenewable resources so quickly? Obviously, he wants production values to go up, extraction to be up, so that he can stand up in the short term and create the so-called boom. He is basically a rhinestone cowboy; these things are not true gems. He wants to be shiny and brilliant, but the fact is he is exploiting our--it is black gold, and in terms of Manitoba's economy, fool's gold, because what you are doing is taking it out very quickly, you are not managing it in a proper way.
We see this not only in the oil and gas sector. We see in today's paper, in fact, that this government is going to go and mine Birds Hill Park. Why? Because this minister only supports glittery minerals, nickel, copper, gold--you see, the minister is encouraging. When it comes to industrial minerals he has fired, decentralized or removed every geologist dealing with industrial minerals, that includes sand and gravel. There are no energy or management resources, and that is what is a shame.
So in terms of Bill 21, we are happy to support the government which will make a more efficient and productive operation of the department, and we look to co-operate in that sector; however, we hope that the government and particularly this minister will get back to what is truly important, sustaining our nonrenewable mineral resources. Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second reading of Bill 21. Is it the will of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed?
Some Honourable Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Bill 33--The Education Administration Amendment Act
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), Bill 33, The Education Administration Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'administration scolaire), standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): I am pleased to speak today on Bill 33, which is The Education Administration Amendment Act. I would like to refer all honourable members, most particularly the government members, to the words that were put on the record two days ago by the Education critic, who very eloquently outlined the concerns that we have not only with Bill 33, but with all the Education legislation before us in the House today, but I will speak most particularly to Bill 33 itself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are facing enormous challenges in Manitoba today as are all communities across the world. The challenges facing our society are almost in many ways intractable, it would appear to be. We are facing economic challenges, we are facing social challenges. We are facing challenges to every single one of the institutions that we have fought so long and hard for and that help define what we are, not only as Manitobans but what we are as Canadians.
* (1600)
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
One of those elements that we have always fought to maintain and to enhance is the public education system. A hundred years ago, maybe give or take, there was not a public education system per se. Public education was not perceived as a right; it was perceived as a privilege, and only people who could afford to send their children to school did so. At that point in time and moving forward through the late, late 19th Century and early 20th Century, teachers were also not given the kind of respect that they have earned over the past 40 or 50 years.
The image of the school marm coming to a small community in Manitoba and being given a very small stipend, put up at the home of one of the residents of the community and being under enormous restrictions as to what they could say, what they could do, who they could talk to, even what they could wear, that image we felt had no place in modern Manitoba history. However, I think it is not too far-fetched to say that some of the elements in the education bills before us today, before us in this session, most particularly elements in Bill 33, harken back to that earlier view of the role of teachers in our society and, by extension, the role of the public education system in our society.
Today, Madam Speaker, we no longer live in a largely rural community. We no longer live in a society where it took days if not weeks to communicate one with another. We no longer live in a society where the horse was the major means of transportation, followed closely by shanks' mare. No, we live in a society which is more complex than any before in our history, not only complex but where changes are taking place at the speed of light, literally. In the context of this challenging, ever-changing society we have put before us legislation that does not recognize those challenges, that does not try and work together to address those challenges, but rather we have legislation such as Bill 33 which has as it is goal, one can only assume, a return to what was seen as the simpler days of yore.
Madam Speaker, it is a sad commentary on the government and it is a sad commentary on the potential and actual damage that can be caused to our public education system by legislation such as Bill 33 that this government not only introduces such legislation but speaks very eloquently or very forcefully in favour of this kind of legislation.
Our society as a whole is not only changing very rapidly and not only very complex but it is also very heterogeneous. We have even within the city of Winnipeg a range of communities, a range of neighbourhoods, a range of abilities, a range of challenges facing the students that reside in Winnipeg, and that is not talking at all about the challenges that face the children and the families in rural and northern Manitoba, challenges, I might add parenthetically, that have been exacerbated, not ameliorated by the actions of this government over the last eight years.
The challenges facing all of the school children, all of the parents, all of the administrators and all of the communities throughout our province are difficult enough without having to deal with the draconian, arrogant, authoritarian, antidemocratic legislation that is being put forward in this House by the Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) and by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews).
Madam Speaker, what we need to face the challenges of today in our public school system, we need co-operation, we need interdependence, we need flexibility. If you read the words--[interjection]
Madam Speaker, much as I would like to respond in great detail to the comments just stated by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), I will forebear. Instead of what we need, which is interdependence, flexibility, co-operation and a basic respect one for another, what we have in the legislation before us, not only Bill 33, not only all of the other Education bills, but the Labour bills, the Health bills, virtually every major bill coming before this House is instead the act of an arrogant, uncaring government.
Instead of co-operation, instead of a recognition of the complexities of our society, instead of a recognition of the fact that not all children learn at the same rate, not all children enter school with the same background, not all children have the same calibre of home life, not all children are grounded in the English language as their first language, not all children have the benefits of what is available potentially in our society. Some children, yes, some children enter the school system with a great deal of preparation in their background. Many other children enter with many strikes against them.
What we need in our public school system is to recognize that fact, is to recognize that there are over 100 countries of origin reflected in the people of Manitoba, and many of the people who come from those countries are new Canadians, far fewer than there should be. I would challenge the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) to do what he is supposed to do and try and expand the number of new immigrants to the province of Manitoba, but then I am out of scope in dealing with the elements of this bill.
Madam Speaker, instead of recognizing the current reality, as I have said before, this government is attempting to reintroduce a reality that never existed in the first place. It is a vision of their fevered imaginations. It is a vision of a family and a community that never existed in reality, pockets of it did, yes, but we have always had a heterogeneous society. We have always had challenges of a social nature, challenges of an economic nature, challenges facing us, and, up until this legislation was introduced and up until this current government was first elected, the public school system more or less reflected that.
The public school system and the stakeholders in that system more or less worked on a co-operative framework. They were more or less working together. There were, of course, conflicts. There always are conflicts when you are dealing with a complex system like the public school system, but, Madam Speaker, the basic philosophical underpinnings of our understanding of the role of teachers, students, parents, administrators and government in the public school system were working. Not now. With the implementation of these bills before us in the Legislature this session, that basic understanding, that basic sense of co-operation, that basic willingness to work together has been, or will be, destroyed, destroyed not through a mistake on the part of this government.
* (1610)
The member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) in her comments several days ago said that she could not believe that the legislation before us was a result of, and I am quoting, Tory vindictiveness. Well, I do not know if members opposite are aware of this, but I am not as charitable in many ways as my colleague the member for Wolseley. I do happen to believe that there are elements of vindictiveness in this legislation. There is also, as my colleague from Wolseley said, an ideology that shines through this. This is very true. Now, as I have stated before in the House, every single member here has an ideology.
Ideology is not a bad concept. We all have it. It is the base for our values. It is what frames what we do and what we think, our goals, our objectives, and, hopefully, it is consistent. I can say that the ideology driving the Conservative government in the province of Manitoba today is an ideology based on vindictiveness. It is based on antidemocratic ideas. It is an ideology that has no place in a modern community just before the 21st Century.
Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): So values have no place in a modern community.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Speaker, values have a basic place, and if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) had been listening to me, he would understand that what I am saying is that, yes, you are. The legislation you are producing in the House today in this session is very clear. It is consistent. It is based on an ideology. I am saying that that ideology and the values that frame it and the outcomes of this legislation are negative to the people of Manitoba. I am being very consistent. The minister--[interjection]
The Minister of Agriculture states that I think my ideology is correct and his is incorrect. Yes, more or less, and I am sure the Minister of Agriculture feels exactly the opposite. What I am trying to do is to say that this bill--and the other legislation that goes along with it--exhibits some negative, nasty, mean characteristics that do not benefit and will not benefit any of the members of the education community.
Madam Speaker, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) spoke two days ago just after the member for Wolseley, our Education critic, had put her words on the record. I read his comments, and I was quite interested by what he had to say. One thing the member for Turtle Mountain said is that Bill 33, and I quote: “ . . . is certainly going to ensure that our schools are responsive to the communities that they represent.”
Well, I wish that were the case, but I think we have shown and will continue to show in our deliberations in this House, and I know that the presentations at public hearings will show, that this is exactly what Bill 33 is designed not to do. The schools are not going to be able to be responsive to the needs of the community because the minister takes on an enormous amount of control. I do not understand. This government talks about accountability, it talks about democratization, it talks about decentralization, it talks about responsiveness, and everything in its legislative package this session negates all of those principles.
Those principles that this government talks about are principles that the public education system by and large espoused and acted on for 40 or 50 years before this government came into power. So the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) is exactly 100 percent wrong when he says this legislation will allow schools to be more responsive. It is going to put schools throughout Manitoba, schools in the inner city of Winnipeg, where there is 90 percent new Canadians, where there is 80 percent aboriginal students, where there is 75 to 80 percent single families, where virtually every child comes from a family below the poverty line, where there is a turnover rate of 25 to 30 to 50 to 70 percent each year. Those schools are in the city of Winnipeg.
Also in the city of Winnipeg are schools where the average family income is $80,000 or $90,000, where most of the children come from two-parent families, where English is the first language, where those children have had every benefit before they come to the school system. Does the minister's power that is in Bill 33 reflect this diversity? Absolutely not.
What will happen to our public school system with the implementation of Bill 33 is that the minister's vision will be the vision that is imposed upon every single public school in the province of Manitoba, whether it is in Shamattawa, Thompson, Leaf Rapids, Minnedosa, Dauphin, Steinbach, Winkler, North Kildonan, inner city, whether it is Rossmere. It does not matter what community, the vision of this current minister or her successor will be the vision that will be imposed upon those schools.
Now, Madam Speaker, I am appalled by that because I do not agree with the vision of this current Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh), but I also would be appalled if this were legislation that we were bringing in, because I do not think any one individual has the right to impose their vision, their view of what constitutes education, of what constitutes the role of teachers, of what constitutes how you assess program. No one individual has the right to impose that vision on a multiethnic, multisocioeconomic-strata, multidimensional community such as we have in Manitoba. It makes no pedagogical sense, it makes no sense from a fairness perspective, it makes no sense in any way, shape or form.
We are not talking here about whether or not children should be literate, numerate and understand the role of themselves in a society. What we are talking about is the fact that the Minister of Education can determine through regulations what is going to be tested, how it is going to be tested. Teachers will not have the authority. Teachers will not be able to reflect the needs and the status of their students under this legislation. The Minister of Education (Mrs. McIntosh) will determine whether teachers in Grade 3 can use portfolios as part of their testing process, their evaluation process. The Minister of Education will be able to determine exactly how many minutes a day will be spent on every single element of the curriculum.
This is a rigidity that has no place in modern society. I do not care whether you are in the education system, the health care system, the corporate system. This government talks about the need for flexibility. This is the most rigid, the most authoritarian, the most draconian, the most dictatorial kind of education. [interjection] Madam Speaker, would you please call the minister to order.
Madam Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Barrett: If the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) wants to put his comments on the record, he can jolly well do it on his own time, not on my time. He can obey the rules of the House, which he has absolutely no intention of doing. [interjection] The member for Wellington is also a former teacher, thank you very much, in the south side of Chicago in the early '60s.
Madam Speaker, the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) also made another statement in his speech the other day that I thought was interesting in the context of our view of Bill 33. He says, quote, the ability to be flexible is certainly more prevalent in today's world than ever before.
* (1620)
You know what, Madam Speaker? I agree with him, but the problem is that the legislation in Bill 33 does not allow for any flexibility. I am sorry, I misspoke myself. Yes, there is flexibility. There is flexibility in the person of the Minister of Education. That is the only place where there is any flexibility. Everybody else in this system is going to be subservient to the Minister of Education's (Mrs. McIntosh) view of education.
As I have stated before, that is frightening. It does not matter from which side of the political spectrum you are coming; you cannot have that kind of centralized authoritarian control in a system that must be reflective and flexible if you are going to have a good education system.
I think the members opposite will be sorry to learn--and I am convinced that this is what is going to happen if this legislation passes. I hope the members will listen to the presentations at public committees and will listen to our concerns as raised in the House here. If this legislation is passed without significant amendments, without significant changes, then very soon we are going to find--I do not care how you test. I do not care if you test very flexibly and reflecting the diversity of our population. I do not care if you do as the Minister of Agriculture would like to do and go back to the 1930s and test completely on rote, completely on a very narrow curriculum that does not reflect at all the diversity of the modern life.
What we are going to find is, as a result of legislation such as Bill 33, those test results, however they are determined, are going to be reduced. They are not going to grow, they are not going to increase; they are going to be reduced. You know why, Madam Speaker? Because you cannot destroy the elements of a public education system the way Bill 33 and the other bills do without the fallout being felt, and it going to be felt by the students. It is going to be felt by the teachers. It is going to be felt by the parents and, ultimately, and not very long from now, ultimately by the community as a whole.
The Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the ministers on the government side talk about the need to have an educated citizenry. Well, they do not talk about it like that. That is how we talk about it. They talk about having people who are ready to go to the workforce and educated specifically as IBM--oh, I did not mean to say IBM. Pardon me, Madam Speaker--as Bob Kozminski wants. [interjection] I will not say, air tickets to Brazil, and I do not want to talk about Atlanta. I would like to suggest that I think that I am not alone in this, that the feelings about the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) have changed greatly since he was first put into that position.
But back to education. If we allow Bill 33 to go forward, the teachers in the province of Manitoba in the public school system will be severely hurt. They are going to be hurt, not because the minister is going to be breathing down their neck every day personally, but the impact of Bill 33 will be to narrow, to pinpoint the amount and the degree of flexibility that the teaching profession is going to have in dealing with their children.
This is not inconsistent with some of the other elements in some of the other education bills before us. I have heard from someone who has the Premier's (Mr. Filmon) ear that what they really want to do is reduce down to the number of rankings for salaries for the schoolteachers and start everybody at Class 1. Do you know what a Class 1 schoolteacher earns in the province of Manitoba today--and there are only two or three of them currently in the province of Manitoba today because we recognized up until now the need for highly educated people to be working with our children. Do you know what a Class 1 teacher earns today? About $22,000 a year, and you know what this individual said to me when I queried him on this? He said, well, given the job market today and given the fact that young people want to teach, they will be willing to teach for $22,000 a year.
This just reeks of what the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) chose not to say was the basis behind this legislation. It reeks of vindictiveness. It reeks of saying, who is the enemy here? Who are we going to scapegoat? Who are we going to scapegoat for our decisions that have taken $47 million out of the public school system and added how many million dollars to the private school system.
Well, heaven only knows, we cannot have special needs teachers. We cannot have teachers' aides in our inner-city schools, because there is no money, but, by golly, Ravenscourt gets that $28 million bucks so it can get a Zamboni for its hockey rink. I like those priorities. Those are very clear priorities on the part of this government. They are reflected in everything, every decision they have made since 1988. They are reflected throughout the legislation before us in this session.
The member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed) also says, what is wrong with being accountable to a system that is out there before them, and I would like to say that there is nothing wrong with being accountable. What the member for Turtle Mountain also says is, what is in Bill 33 are simply guidelines. They are simply guidelines. Well, he must not be reading the same piece of legislation that I am reading. Bill 33 does not provide guidelines. Bill 33 gives an incredible amount of power to the Minister of Education to do whatever she or he wants to do, to determine how students will be assessed, how long they will teach each subject each day, what elements can be involved in the assessment process.
It eliminates, cuts out completely or almost completely the school boards. School boards have a much diminished role. Parents have a much diminished role. Where is the role of parent councils in this process? We do not even know. We are going to be voting on Bill 33 without even knowing how the minister is going to implement this legislation. We are really buying a pig in the poke with this piece of legislation.
Madam Speaker, I know that my time is nearly up. I just would like to conclude by saying that this legislation, as I have stated before, along with the other pieces of legislation in education, health care and labour, shows the people of Manitoba the clear vision of this government, and in one way, the positive about this is that nobody after this session is concluded will have any question at all about where this government stands on the issues that are important to the people of Manitoba. It will be abundantly clear where they stand on the issues of public education, where they stand on the issues of health care, where they stand on the issues of fair labour relations. It will be abundantly clear to the people of Manitoba.
It is also going to be abundantly clear to the people who might want to move to Manitoba and are going to take a look at our days lost to strikes and take a look at the comments made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Toews) and take a look at the draconian legislation such as is in Bill 33, and they are going to say why on earth would I want to come to Manitoba. There is nothing here for me. There is nothing here for my children. There is nothing here but a narrow, negative series of negative nattering nabobs of negativism, as the late and unlamented Spiro Agnew once said. [interjection] Definitely not my hero.
At any rate, Madam Speaker, with those words I certainly hope that the government will do the right thing and remove Bill 33 from its legislative agenda this session. Thank you.
* (1630)
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, is there a willingness of the House to call it 4:30? [interjection] I am asking the Speaker for the purpose of private members' hour.
Madam Speaker: There is one minute remaining. Is it the will of the House to call it 4:30? [agreed]
As previously agreed, this bill will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid).
The hour being 4:30 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.