LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, March 10,
1993
The House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of JoAnne
Swayze, Sherri Woods, Joan Rains and others, requesting the Minister
responsible for MPIC (Mr. Cummings) consider implementing no‑fault auto
insurance, capping insurance commissions and bringing other recommendations of
the Kopstein report that the government has delayed acting upon.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to table the
Annual Report 1991‑92 for Rural Development.
It also gives me great pleasure to
table the Annual Report of the Conservation Districts of
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon 21 adult students from the Business Management Skills Program. They are under the direction of Carolee
Batycki. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable member for
Also this afternoon from The Maples
Collegiate, we have twenty‑five Grade 12 students under the direction of
Mr. Gordon Boyko. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema).
On behalf of all honourable members,
I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
PANDA Project
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of 1993, we
have lost over 1,700 jobs in the
Mr. Speaker, yesterday again, we
received the bad news in the confirmation of 80 lost jobs basically being
transferred to
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
government: What action have they taken
on the PANDA Project, a project that contains 48 people working in the
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism):
Mr. Speaker, once again, in terms of the preamble of the Leader of the
Opposition, I would like to point out for him that since August of 1992, there
has been a growth of some 12,000 jobs in the
Mr. Speaker, the articles and some
of the announcements in the last day or two that the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Doer) refers to, most notably the one of the Diners Club and enRoute, and
the announcement with Canadian Airlines today, clearly, I think, anybody who is
involved in the whole review of the airline industry within
It is interesting to note that we do
not get a question from the Leader of the Opposition when Unitel announces that
they are going to bring 400 jobs to
We are in ongoing contact with Air
* (1335)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if we were not losing
1,000 jobs in the Manitoba Telephone System with 400 jobs in Unitel, with a 600
job loss, we would be more positive on this side of the House.
When we lose 162 jobs in rural
The specific question I raise, as
usual, was not answered by the government on the PANDA Project and the 48
people who are trying to find out their fate in terms of their families and
their opportunities, high‑tech jobs in
Gemini Reservation
Systems
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I have a further question to the Deputy
Premier (Mr. Downey). Early this year
there were hearings from the Competition Bureau dealing with the Gemini
application, some 200 high‑tech jobs in
What action or position did the
government take on the Competition Bureau hearings that took place over the
last couple of months on Gemini jobs?
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism):
Once again, as I indicated, we have been in ongoing contact with the major
airlines in
Once again the Leader of the
Opposition in his preamble talks about the rationalization and the changes that
are occurring within industry and business throughout the world. That is the problem with the Leader of the
Opposition and the members of his party.
They do not recognize that those changes are occurring, will occur anyway,
and the kinds of jobs that are being lost or being adjusted that he refers to
will be happening anyway because of the need to compete within
So, in the final analysis, the 400
jobs that we get from Unitel, the 100 jobs that we get from Canada Post are job
growth to our province because those other rationalizations would, in fact,
occur.
That is a problem that they have
always had, the lack of the ability to recognize the need for Manitobans, the
need for Canadians to compete within
Mr. Doer: The Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and his
other minister of unemployment are happy about the situation where we lose‑‑Minister
of Industry, Trade and Tourism, excuse me, are happy about losing 100 jobs to
You did not answer the question
yesterday about the enRoute jobs. You
did not answer the first question on PANDA jobs. You did not answer the second question on
Gemini jobs. The
Government Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would ask a very specific question for any
minister who could give the people of
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): I indicated to the
Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) that we continue to work with Air
They think they have the answer
through short‑term, make‑work projects, instead of real wealth in
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that this
government does not have a position on those jobs.
Dealing with jobs and job
opportunities, I want to ask a question of the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger). The hopes
of the residents of Churchill were raised last month with the announcement by
this government that they had signed, or had agreed to export 500,000 metric
tons of grain to
It now appears that this agreement
is in jeopardy. There is a fair amount
of confusion out amongst the residents of Churchill and, of course, amongst the
residents of this province.
Will the Minister of Transportation
provide some clarification on the status of this agreement that this government
has agreed to with the Russian government?
Will the
* (1340)
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the member refers to an
The agreement that was signed under
the
The grain negotiations that took
place, or the discussions that took place, were directly between the
That was not the provincial
government. That was the jurisdiction
from
We certainly would be very
supportive of it, and are very supportive of it, but those negotiations, Mr.
Speaker, are taking place directly between the Wheat Board and the Russian
jurisdiction.
CN Rail Discussions
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, now that the National
Transportation Act Review Commission has reported, giving the railways the
opportunity to abandon rail lines at their discretion, and since the Wheat Board
has indicated earlier this year that CN will only be able to move 300,000
metric tons to Churchill, what discussions has this Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Driedger) had with CN regarding the inability of CN to meet
the export agreement that was hopefully going to see 500,000 metric tons of
grain go to
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of the report that was tabled by the
National Transportation Act Review Commission yesterday, and then he changes
over to the Churchill aspect of it. I do
not know which question he wants answered, but I would like to just maybe‑‑[interjection!
In 1987, the federal Transportation
Act was passed and there was legislative requirement in there to have a review
done within five years. A commission was
established, did their review last year, and that report was tabled yesterday.
I just want to add that our
province, myself, made a submission to that commission, a copy of which I think
I tabled last year at that time, a very extensive submission that we made
putting forward
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that there is no
commitment to ship grain through Churchill this season.
Government Plan
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): My final supplementary is to the same minister,
Mr. Speaker.
Given that the
Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and
Transportation):
Mr. Speaker, I think my position, as well as my government's position, has been
very clear in terms of our support for the
Mr. Speaker, I feel very positive,
after meeting with the Russian delegation that was out here and the agreement
that was signed under the
If there is going to be a commitment
of 500 million tonnes by the Russians, I want to assure you that we will make
sure CN delivers that grain through that port. [interjection!
* (1345)
Income Security‑‑Financial
Assistance
GED Examinations
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, they are just going to have to
wait until June 5.
Mr. Speaker, there has been an
attitude displayed, unfortunately, by this government that education is not of
value. That attitude is expressed, very
vocal terms, by significant cuts to education K‑12 and education at post‑secondary
levels. It appears that the Minister of
Family Services is also prepared to contribute to cuts in education.
Can the Minister of Education tell
this House why Income Security is unwilling to provide the fees for a single
mother on welfare to write the GED examination?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to clarify
that for the Leader of second opposition party.
The Department of Family Services
does provide support for individuals on social allowances who want to get back
into the workforce, through a variety of programs. The department also supports the GED program,
if in fact the recipient comes forward and takes part in discussions towards a
plan of where the GED exams are going to lead them.
The GED exams are the general
equivalency of Grade 12. Many Manitobans
have used that route, if they have been out of school for a number of years, to
get Grade 12 equivalency to go on to another training program. So if there is another training program in
the offing, then the social allowances portion of my department will support
the GED exams.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, then will the minister explain
why the branch of Income Security informed my researcher today that they would
not pay the $42 for this woman to repeat her GED examination? She failed one course by one point. They will not pay the $42 because,
quote: She does not have a consistent
comprehensive life plan.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of discussions
that the research department of the Liberal Party has had with members of the
branch of my department. I would assure
the member that we would see that all individuals who wish to access that would
receive fair treatment under the program and the regulations that we have in
place.
Department of Family
Services
1993 Program Cutbacks
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we have consistently watched the
Department of Family Services cutting back from funding to single‑parent
welfare recipients. Can the minister
tell us if there will be additional cutbacks of those program initiatives for
the 1993 year?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Minister of Family
Services): Mr. Speaker, let me correct the Leader of the
Liberal Party. The Department of Family
Services has seen tremendous increases, not only in the volume of people we
have served over the last number of budgets, but also in the amount of funds
that we provide to those Manitobans who require the safety net that this
department offers. I am hoping that we
will get into further discussions of that in our Estimates process which I
think is forthcoming in the near future.
Community Development
Branch
Staff Layoffs
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Rural Development
stated at a staff seminar that the Department of Rural Development is
undertaking a new direction and that the department is an important player to
help rejuvenate rural
My question for the Minister of
Rural Development: Can the minister tell
this House how the layoff of 19 people in the Community Development branch will
affect the vital role that he claims his department is playing in rural
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I first of all would like to
thank the member for his question. He is
the new critic for Rural Development.
First of all, I guess I would have
to indicate that yes, his information about my comments at a strategic planning
session that was held about a week ago are accurate in that Rural Development
does have a key role to play in the revitalization of the economy of rural
The Department of Rural Development
has done some very creative and innovative things with regard to assisting
communities in rural
* (1350)
Grow Bonds Office‑‑Altona
Staff Transfer
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): The minister did not as usual answer the
question of the 19 jobs that are being cut, Mr. Speaker, and he talks about
Grow Bonds. Can this minister confirm
that staff within the Grow Bonds program have or will be transferred from
Altona to
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, I just want to remind the critic
for Rural Development that is his first question he has posed and his
accusation of not coming forward with the answers is not quite accurate.
Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Grow
Bonds program, there are no plans, to my knowledge, of transferring staff from
Altona to
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the minister
perhaps talk to staff who have indicated that move.
Decentralization
Government Initiatives
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, this government talks about
decentralization initiative, rural rejuvenation and then lays off staff or
transfers them away from rural areas where they are mostly needed. I want to ask the minister: With nine of the 19 jobs, layoffs that are
leaving rural
Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural
Development): Mr. Speaker, this government has a commitment
to decentralizing government jobs to rural
Dairy Quotas‑‑Amalgamation
Government Position
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
There are 750 cream producers in
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, indeed the issue that the member
raises is a very serious issue because certainly there are changes occurring in
the consumers' preference of what they want to consume. They went from whole milk to 2 percent milk
to 1 percent milk to skim milk, which means that the industry needs less
cream. The milk producers of this
country control the allocation of quota on a national basis, on a provincial
basis.
The Milk Marketing Board in
Public Input
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Will he go back and insist that
there be public hearings so that those cream producers, those 750 people who
are going to have their income gouged from them, will have a chance for input
into this?
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I am very encouraged that the member did
acknowledge there is change. Let me tell
the member that change is more dramatic than she even realizes, because there
is enough skim off‑‑[interjection! Well, Mr. Speaker, she asked the
question, I listened. Would she please
give me the courtesy of listening to the answer, because I am giving her the
facts that exist in the industry.
The milk that is produced in this
province by milk producers, there is enough skim off of cream to satisfy the
cream demand by and large. The Milk
Marketing Board, they have a cream advisory committee. They have sent letters of information to all
those producers she mentioned. They have
sent them letters of information. They
have also asked them to come to meetings, and the board has had meetings widely
spread across this province. These are people elected by the milk producers,
cream producers of this province to represent them, and they are doing a very
good job of doing that. I am disappointed
that member does not agree with that.
* (1355)
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, I am really disappointed that
member has degenerated to that point that she puts false information on the
record‑‑absolute false information.
I go around this province talking about opportunity, diversification,
value added, produce more of higher value and sell it to the consumers around
this province and this world. That
member was at an Agri‑Food Forum in
Headingley Jail
Media Attention
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Acting
Minister of Justice.
Yesterday the minister indicated
that the abuse of temporary absences was simply to relieve pressure, in
response to complaints about relieving pressure at Headingley Jail, by the
abuse of temporary absences. He
suggested this was simply the result of a few disgruntled employees who were
running to people like myself and members of the media, Mr. Speaker.
Interestingly, that view was
parroted by the Acting Superintendent at Headingley, Mr. Larry Krocker, who was
so concerned about this that on February 8, 1993, he wrote to staff
saying: The media's bias often seems to
be in favour of conflict. It appears
that it is the media's impression that conflict and sensational headlines sell
papers. Given this situation, it serves
the media to present Headingley in a negative light. On a positive note, remember, the media and
the public have a short attention span.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the Acting
Minister of Justice: Is this the government's hope, to deflect negative
publicity about giving, for instance, a man convicted of domestic assault only
six nights in jail out of a 90‑day sentence? Is this their hope, that the public has a
short attention span?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, as the acting minister, I will take
the question as notice, specific to the specific issue he has brought forward, but
I do not know now whether the member for St. James is now on the same side of
the issue as the Minister of Justice or on the other side.
Let me say that governments
everywhere of course like to deflect negative attention. There is nothing new in that type of
reaction.
I will take the question as notice.
Bed Requirements
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, again, for the acting
minister: Why is it that in the last two
years, Headingley Jail has gone from having a capacity of over 400 to approximately
280 to 290, roughly 127 beds have been cut out in the last two years,
approximately one‑third?
There is no corresponding increase
in rehabilitative services in the community.
There is no corresponding decrease in the crime rate. How is it that we have now only a need for
two‑thirds of the rate that we had two years ago? What has happened to the people who were
otherwise‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, in no way do I accept the facts
as presented by the member opposite. He has a long tradition of sometimes
missing the mark.
Mr. Speaker, I will take that
question as notice for the Minister of Justice.
* (1400)
Dormitory Closure
Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, finally, for the same
minister: Can the minister indicate to
the House whether or not currently a further two dorms at Headingley Jail,
another 32 beds, dorms 3 and 4 with 16 beds each, are comtemplated being
closed? Can the minister indicate to the
House when it is anticipated that those dorms are going to be closed?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Again, Mr. Speaker, I will take that question
as notice.
Mr. Speaker, I imagine the Estimates
of the Department of Justice will be coming not too distant, and the member
then will have an answer to that question.
Economic Policies
Government Position
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, in last year's budget statement
the Minister of Finance said that
Mr. Speaker, will this Minister of
Finance now admit that his rosy predictions were wrong, totally wrong, and that
his economic policies are not working?
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, it may come as some surprise to
members opposite, I will not admit that.
The member talks about my
predictions. Again I state, for anybody
who wants to listen, Mr. Speaker, that my methodology around forecasting is the
same as we inherited from the former government, and that is, we take the seven
leading forecasting agencies across the country, we take their numbers and we
do a simple average and we present that number in our budget. Nothing has changed I believe in this
province for the last 10 or 15 years.
Mr. Speaker, a year ago, when we
brought down the budget, we sensed that there would be national growth in the
range of 2.5 to 3 percent. That now has
been scaled back for the country as a whole, into the area of 1.5 to 1.75
percent. That was 1992 growth. I say to the members, obviously we are a part
of the nation and our numbers accordingly have been reduced in keeping indeed
with every other province in the country.
Manufacturing Investment
1992 Decline
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Finance
explain why manufacturing investment in 1992 actually declined by 8.1 percent,
whereas the minister predicted in his budget statement that it would increase
by 31.2 percent? There is a long way
between a 31.2 percent increase and an 8.1 percent decline. Where is the leadership of the Economic
Development Board of Cabinet? Can he
explain why this is happening?
I might add, Mr. Speaker, in terms
of manufacturing, we lost 4,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector alone in 1992.
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, again, the numbers that I presented
were simple averages of forecasts that had been presented. Indeed, in this case that was a Statistics
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, if the
member wants to reflect on '92, this is what happened. Growth in manufacturing capital in 1992 is
expected to be over 50 percent up from '91.
Again, this is the best growth rate in
Mr. Leonard Evans: In due course, Mr. Speaker, we will put all
the facts on the record.
Private Investment
Spending
Budget Predictions
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary
question to the Minister of Finance.
This government prides itself on
stimulating private investment spending.
Why did private investment spending in
Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I missed the mark for the very
same reasons I did in the other two areas.
I accepted the forecasts. They
were not my own. I accepted the
forecasts as brought forward by outside agencies, as is the methodology in
place that the department has used for several years‑‑no different
than when his colleagues used to bring down the budget for the
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, though, in
case the member has not recognized it, the reason that private investment did
not increase at the rate as we had forecast and we hoped would result was that
the national recession lasted longer than indeed everybody thought it
would. Of course, that has manifested
itself in other ways in a sense of revenue reductions to government that is now
causing us great difficulty as we budget towards 1993.
Repeal
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Does the minister agree with this
recommendation, that The MIC Act be repealed, because and as I quote from Mr.
Blair's report, there is no compelling reason for the MIC to need to be
constituted by legislation today?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, I thank my
honourable friend across the way for asking that question.
Indeed, we did commission Don Blair
to do a report on the status of the Manitoba Intercultural Council and what the
future should be. He has recommended,
Mr. Speaker, and I agree with the recommendation, in fact, that the Manitoba
Intercultural Council should now be turned over to the community. I know that both opposition parties in the
House in the past have asked this government to remove perceived political
interference in board appointments to the Manitoba Intercultural Council. I think there was legislation, in fact, that
was introduced by the opposition parties and supported by the opposition
parties.
Mr. Speaker, we are removing any
perception of political interference and letting the Manitoba Intercultural
Council be completely run by the community.
Ms. Barrett:
Mr.
Speaker, it is very interesting that this minister who has politicized this
whole process talks about taking it out of political process.
Recommendations
Ms. Becky Barrett (
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr.
Speaker, there is not any piece of legislation or nonlegislation, in fact, that
can prevent a community organization from operating in any way they see fit to
serve the community that they represent.
I welcome the MIC's biennial assembly in April, look forward to hearing
their recommendations and look forward to the way they believe the Manitoba
Intercultural Council should operate into the future.
* (1410)
Bill 16‑‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Government Justification
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): It is well known that this government has
undertaken unprecedented cuts in public education, as has been shown in this
House and announced earlier, as well as a massive intrusion into the decision
making of school boards that we see through Bill 16. Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, we were treated to
the mind‑boggling sight of this minister refusing to answer questions
about her bill when it was tabled in the House from myself as critic, a matter
which you have taken under consideration.
I want to ask the minister today now
whether she can justify what she said yesterday in introducing the bill for
second reading when she said the bill "is fair and equitable to both
school divisions and taxpayers;" when under this government's policy some
school divisions, Mr. Speaker, would have to cut their special levy by
significant amounts when others could increase that special levy to homeowners
by 8 or 10 percent.
How is that fair and equitable by
this government?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to answer the
question. Yesterday, my honourable
friend was not really prepared to speak.
So I am glad that he has been able to take the opportunity at the
briefing offered by my office to acquaint him with my bill so that now he is
able to put questions forward.
Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.
Point of Order
Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, as we raised yesterday, on a
point of order, I have never seen a minister refuse to answer questions on
second reading. We will debate the bill
when she answers the questions, which every other minister I have seen in 11
years‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. The honourable
member clearly does not have a point of order.
It is a dispute over the facts.
The honourable Madam Minister, to
finish her response.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I did say yesterday, when I had
the opportunity to introduce Bill 16, that it is fair and equitable to both
school divisions and to taxpayers. It is
fairness to taxpayers because it is limiting in the amount of the special levy
that is able to be raised. It is fair
and equitable to school divisions because it provides the same 2 percent cap on
the special requirement, that is the amount of money required for a school year
by a school division. It provides the
same equitable cap.
Mr. Plohman:
Mr.
Speaker, the minister obviously does not understand this even though she had a
briefing this morning for herself.
Government Flexibility
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Is the minister prepared to allow some flexibility
in this bill, so that it would apply to either the special levy or the special
requirement, whichever would yield the most dollars for the school divisions,
because some divisions will be able to increase the special levy by 8 or 10
percent? Lakeshore,
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that it is the
honourable member who does not understand the function, and it is the
honourable member who does not understand the impact.
In fairness to school divisions, the
2 percent cap was placed on the special requirement, that is the dollar amount
required. The special levy, as the member would know if he did take the
opportunity to attend the briefing I had arranged for him this morning and he
was not able to attend, yields different amounts across different
divisions. That, Mr. Speaker, would be
unfair.
School Board Compliance
Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the minister undertook a little
damage control this morning, a little political action to try and recover from
yesterday's disaster in this House.
Mr. Speaker, since we have not
received any answers from this minister, we have not seen any answers in the
House in great form by this minister.
Since the minister‑‑
Mr. Speaker:
Order, please. Question, please,
now.
Mr. Plohman: If
the minister wants to intrude on the actions of school boards in this way, is
this minister planning to fire school boards that do not comply with her
actions and in fact put in place trustees to carry out the will‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and
Training): Mr. Speaker, in making this announcement we
did want to ensure, No. 1, fairness for taxpayers. We did want to protect the taxpayers,
something that the other side has only encouraged us to continue to allow taxes
to rise and rise across this province.
We made sure that we did put into place a 2 percent cap.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we also
made sure that school divisions had in place the tools to deal with their
financial situation. We did recommend
that school divisions might look at a voluntary workweek reduction and also a
reduction in their own administrative costs, not to affect students and the
classroom.
Mr. Speaker:
Time
for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs): Mr. Speaker, could I have leave to make a
nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable minister have leave to
make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mrs. McIntosh:
Mr. Speaker, I would like to briefly share with the members a piece of
good news. The Consumers' Association of
This is a $2,000 award which they
will use to buy a computer and software to help CAC with its product
information service in grocery price surveys.
My department enjoys a long‑standing
working relationship with CAC. In fact,
Margaret Stansfield was the first recipient of
I am very pleased that the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
I would like to remind the honourable Madam Minister that nonpolitical
statements are reserved for members to make a nonpolitical statement. It appears by the honourable Madam Minister's
statement that her department has some involvement.
Honourable Madam Minister, just
clarify, please.
Mrs. McIntosh:
The
Manitoba Consumers' Association is a voluntary nonprofit organization that does
volunteer work for the public, shares that information with wide groups. We also get information from that group.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Madam
Minister. It appeared that the
honourable minister's department was involved.
* * *
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical
statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
a nonpolitical statement? [agreed!
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize two
exemplary Manitobans this afternoon.
They are both going to be representing
Their names are Byron Goodwin and
Alanna Yakiwchuk. Both of them are
athletes from
I think we should all recognize
that, in this day and age, hard work and dedication still pays off, and that
they should be commended, as well as the coaches, the trainers, the volunteers
that will be going to
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Darren Praznik (Deputy Government House
Leader): Mr. Speaker, I would like to just make some
announcements with respect to committees.
I would like to call the Standing Committee on Economic Development to
meet on Thursday, March 18, 1993, at 10 a.m., to consider the 1992 Annual
Report of Venture Manitoba Tours Ltd.
The Standing Committee on Public
Accounts will meet on Thursday, March 18, 1993, at 10 a.m., to continue to
consider Volume 3, 1991 Public Accounts, Volumes 1, 2 and 3, 1992 Public
Accounts, and the 1992 Annual Report of the Provincial Auditor.
I would also announce that the
Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources will meet on
Thursday, March 25, 1993, at 10 a.m., to continue to consider the 1991 Annual
Report of the Workers Compensation Board, and the 1992 Five Year Operating
Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask if you
could please call for second reading of Bill 15, The Boxing and Wrestling
Commission Act, and then I would ask, Sir, if you could please call for a
continuation on debate on second readings the bills as listed on the Order
Paper.
(Mrs. Louise Dacquay,
Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
SECOND
Bill 15‑‑The
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Tourism): I am pleased to move, seconded by the Minister
of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Bill 15, The Boxing and Wrestling
Commission Act (Loi sur la Commission de la boxe et de la lutte) be now read a
second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Stefanson: I am pleased to rise to say a few words about
this particular act. The proposed new
Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act is aimed at providing more effective
regulation of professional boxing and wrestling here in the
The fundamental objectives are to
promote the safety of the contestants and to protect the public interest. I am pleased to report that the proposed
legislation was developed after consultations with the boxing and wrestling
industry, with the
In addition, similar legislation
from other jurisdictions was carefully reviewed when the new legislation was
being developed. The new act responds to recommendations made by the Provincial
Auditor as well. The proposed legislation
incorporates changes which are quite substantive.
* (1420)
The distinction in the existing act
between personal licences and event permits is unclear. The new act clarifies the licensing
provisions. It clearly distinguishes between
the two types of licences which are issued in practice, that is, personal
licences for contestants, promoters and other participants and event permits
for specific events.
In support of applications for
licences, information including medical information will be required by the
commission. Applicants for licences will
also be required to provide information to prove their identity, Madam Deputy
Speaker.
The proposed legislation responds to
recommendations made by the Provincial Auditor regarding the posting of
security and the levying of fees.
Promoters will be given more flexibility regarding the form of security
that they provide.
The proposed legislation will also
permit the commission to levy a flat fee in certain circumstances rather than the
standard percentage of gate receipts.
Right now the fee relates to a percentage of gate receipts received at
an event, a percentage of 3 percent, but in some instances it is more
appropriate to levy a flat fee because there are no gate receipts being collected,
there is no fee being charged as admission, so to give the commission the
flexibility to charge a flat fee covers off both types of aspects.
In the past there have been problems
with the enforcement of the existing legislation, and in order to address these
problems the proposed legislation provides for significantly increased criminal
penalties for breaches of the act.
In addition, the proposed
legislation provides the commission with new powers to discipline holders of
licences and event permits, and also provides for the appointment of inspectors
to assist with the enforcement of the act.
The proposed legislation, Madam Deputy Speaker, will provide the
commission with expanded regulation‑making power which will assist it to
achieve its overall mandate. The
expanded regulation‑making power will enable the commission to make
regulations respecting professional boxing and wrestling, including licensing
and including information to be provided by third parties and definitions.
The existing legislation provides
for the commission to regulate the showing of professional boxing and wrestling
contests or exhibitions on closed circuit television. Technology has advanced to the point that it
is no longer practical for the commission to regulate closed circuit
television. Closed circuit television
technology has become outmoded because of the introduction of satellite and
television technology. The new act makes
no reference to closed circuit television.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, again, I
reiterate for members of this House that the new proposed legislation has been
developed after consultation with the boxing and wrestling industry, the
Madam Deputy Speaker, there was
quite lengthy discussion on the whole issue of whether or not wrestling should
continue to be a part of this act and after consultation with people in the
industry, after a review of other jurisdictions, it was deemed that impact
wrestling should definitely continue to be a part of this act. The whole issue of professional wrestling and
boxing, the greatest concern, as I have already outlined, is the safety of
participants and this act goes a long way to enhancing and ensuring the safety
of the participants.
Wrestling and boxing, Madam Deputy
Speaker, in the
As well, both professions, I guess
more notably boxing, have also provided some citizens who have brought
recognition to the
So there are several reasons that
this is an industry that is important to
So, in the final analysis, after
extensive consultation and discussions with many individuals associated with
professional wrestling and boxing, we feel that this act really does provide us
with the kinds of parameters that are essential in this industry today and
therefore I am pleased to commend it to this House.
I hope that the House sees fit to
support the intent of the new Boxing and Wrestling Commission Act in an
expeditious fashion. I look forward to
hearing the comments of other members of the House on this particular piece of
legislation, and I thank you for the opportunity to put a few thoughts on the
record. Thank you.
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑‑The
Endangered Species Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading, Bill 2
(The Endangered Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en
voie de disparition), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie).
Some Honourable Members: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand? Is
there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
* (1430)
Mr. Jim Maloway (Elmwood): Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labour minister made
reference to 40 minutes. I want to let
him know that I recently purchased a watch, and I have set Mickey's big hand
and little hand. At about 10 minutes
after three, I should be winding down and concluding my remarks.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this Bill 2 is
an amendment to the original bill which was passed by this government back in
March of 1990. In fact, the minister, in
his remarks in Hansard, points out, and rightly so, that
That is, I suppose, typical of what a
government minister would say in this regard, because minor amendments
oftentimes open the door to major changes, and we have to, as the opposition,
be vigilant in that regard. He goes on
to say, in his observations, that the amendments of this bill will require the
language to be consistent with the federal and, in fact, international treaties
and accords that govern the endangered species worldwide.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe it
was the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), my colleague on this side of the
House, who made the observation that as residents of this planet, we are in
fact stewards of our environment, and we can be either good stewards or we can
be bad stewards of the environment. I
think what we have seen over the last hundred years is a record that one could
only indicate is bad stewardship.
One only has to look at the record
of the eastern European countries to see that over the last 40 years, they have
developed an economy that has paid very little service in the way of any kind of
environmental protection or controls.
What we see are massive pollution problems. Of course, those pollution problems are not
limited to eastern Europe by any stretch.
The pollution problems are rampant here in
What we have seen, finally, and
perhaps it is not too late, Madam Deputy Speaker, but what we have seen is a
recognition that the pollution problems are substantial and that efforts must
be made to clean up the mess that we have in society right now. Of course, we get into arguments within all
parties as to how serious the problem is, first of all, and how fast we must go
to clean up the problems.
Last year, I was fortunate enough to
listen to a speech by Dr. Suzuki from
I know that people who make these
predictions and make these observations are oftentimes dismissed as wild‑eyed
radicals and not being in touch with reality and being too environmentally
conscious, but I think only time will tell whether in fact those accusations
are born out. I do not think any of us
want to be in a position at the end of the day 15 or 20 years from now when
there is really not much left of the world and the ecology in the world, there
will be little satisfaction, we will have little satisfaction in being able to
say, or they will, that I told you so 15 years before. So I think that we do have to wake up
collectively as a society and make certain that we do not do any further
unnecessary damage to our environment and to the species that live there.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker, once
again the realities of the situation and the budgetary constraints and so on of
society oftentimes allow us to put off what we should be doing
environmentally. We see that in a whole
myriad of areas in society where people who live in an area have an economic
dependence on a certain type of activity.
It is too expensive or not possible for us to redirect their activity in
the short run, so we put up with impure environments in that area because we do
not want to put these people out of a job.
I say that I am in the middle in this
whole area because, while I understand the need for correcting environmental
problems, I also understand the need for some sort of balance here and that we
cannot possibly cause major disruptions in our society overnight. We should be doing things like phasing out
CFCs and taking other measures on a kind of a phase‑out sort of
basis. I would argue that the
acceleration of the phase‑out should be perhaps faster than we are doing
it, but to outright ban these practices and so on is hard to do politically
because of the dislocations that result.
I have always been a rather hopeful
person in hoping at the end of the day that what we will find is that people
will pull back from the edge before we go over the brink and that the people
who are suggesting today that in fact that is where we are headed and that it
is inevitable and so on, I hope that they are wrong. I am sure they hope they are wrong too but,
in the final analysis, we will not know until it is too late, and that is a
problem. There is some really strong
evidence that these people are able to produce, to indicate that in fact we may
be headed to the point of no return. I
draw your attention to the disappearance of literally I believe hundreds of
thousands of species of plants, animals and so on, insects, around the world,
and to the extreme interest that people have shown in the loss of the rain
forests in South America, which are a major, major concern.
I would caution people, those of us
in the House here who may be too quick to identify people as radical
environmentalists and so on and dismiss what they have to say out of hand,
because what they may be 15 or 20 years from now is viewed as quite visionary
for their times.
Madam Deputy Speaker, there are
many, many ways in which wildlife species are being encroached upon by current
society. We saw major oil spills in recent years. We thought that perhaps the tankers and so on
were being built in such a way as to minimize, to a great degree, the oil spills,
but what has been proven is that major oil spills are occurring around the
world. Many oil spills do not get the publicity that the Exxon Valdez did. In fact, I am told that there are hundreds
and hundreds of oil spills, some of a more of a minor nature, not as major,
happening all over the world every day.
These, of course, do not get reported as much as the big ones do. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of these
oil spills has a devastating effect on the species of animals that inhabit that
particular area.
Another area that we are finding out
about little by little, Madam Deputy Speaker, involves the military's basically
hiding of waste materials, nuclear waste materials and the like, since the
Second World War. We are finding, today,
horror stories in cases where both the Americans and the Russians have simply
been dumping at sea barge loads of toxic wastes and so on. These barrels are sitting at the bottom of
bodies of water, and, in fact, by now perhaps many of the records are lost. So there may be millions and millions of tons
of this stuff sitting at the bottom of the seas, leaking out into the water and
into the water streams, and we do not know because there are no records left.
What we do know is there are many, many examples of records that do exist where
these toxic wastes have been literally dumped in the oceans.
What we have found over time is that
this practice has been discredited. We
cannot say that it is not happening still.
We are not absolutely sure. I do
not think anyone in this House knows really what the military is up to in any
given country. That is why people, certainly in the opposition, have to be
vigilant and suspicious of moves on the part of authorities.
* (1440)
For example, the AECL in Pinawa, I
believe, are interested in digging big holes in the rocks of the
I think that there is a certain
positive situation to have developed whereby critics are keeping‑‑and
that is nonparliamentary critics as well‑‑a good eye on authorities
in this country, such as the military and AECL and government bodies and so on.
The wildlife of the country has been
encroached upon. As recently as the Gulf
War, we had a deliberate move on the part of a government and a military
government leader to light the oil wells on fire in
We will never know how many years it
will take, if ever, for the environment to get back to its former pure
state. In fact, I do not know that that
is possible at any point now because we have done so much damage over the
years. Nature is such a delicate
environment that once you throw one piece of it out of whack, the thing is out
of whack for good.
That leads me into the area of the
whole question of how we are to deal with the species and animals in
society. I guess if I was a farmer, all
my chickens would die of old age because I could not bear to kill any animals. So I am somewhat sympathetic [interjection!
and I will deal with the member's statements.
I do say that whenever I see a truckload of chickens going by on the
road, I swear off chicken, and then of course I find myself a month later
dropping in at the local McDonald's. It
is an incremental change that I am going through. I am finding myself, over the years, starting
to recognize that I should be eating a little better than I have in the past.
These are good signs that we have
done, implemented such things as a drunk driving legislation. We have put bans on smoking and so on. I think that many of us who are sort of part‑time
smokers, or odd‑time smokers, would appreciate a ban in smoking because
that would wean us off the habit for good.
I think that some of the areas that we are heading in are good.
I for one, in many respects, like to
be directed by the authorities or by the government for my own good. I know that if I am told that smoking would
be banned and so on, and that I could not get to the cigarette supply, then I would
be just as happy to quit smoking.
Now to deal with my old friend the
Minister of Labour's (Mr. Praznik) observations about the meat eating and so
on. I am saying that I think part of it
is an educational process. Obviously, we are not going to ban the eating of
meat, but throughout the last 10 years, with the educational programs on TV and
so on, people are starting to think in terms of eating better. I am getting away slowly but surely from the
eating of meat. I certainly admit to a
slight bit of hypocrisy on the subject still at this point, but I am working at
it.
The point is, Madam Deputy Speaker,
that while I could not kill farm animals, I recognize that there are legitimate
concerns and interests on the other side of the coin, and there are those who
are opposed to absolute total ban on experimentation on animals and so on, and
I believe wherever possible we should do that.
It has been pointed out, and quite legitimately, that if one does not
call a herd of whatever type of animal it is, that it may just expand to the
point where it becomes a major problem and, for its own good, it has to be
dealt with.
So I think there has to be some sort
of a balance here. There has to be some sort of a recognition that in fact in
certain cases that there may be situations where we may have to deal with
killing animals for certain societal goods.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this
particular bill that the minister has introduced allows the minister to have
some additional authority in dealing with designated animals so that they can
allow some scientific experiments. I
think that some of us are concerned about how far that could possibly go. The minister in his own comments made reference
to a sick animal on the endangered species list that he has, and that he was
unable to I believe do anything about the situation because he could not allow
any kind of scientific experiments.
So this change giving him additional
authority to dealing with designated animals and allowing scientific
experiments perhaps is something that may be necessary. We are concerned that it might be
interpreted, and one of the other speakers on this bill in fact, Madam Deputy
Speaker, made reference to the fact that Ducks Unlimited, depending on what the
definition of a scientific experiment was, which purports to be an office
complex could in fact have itself classified under this bill as an experimental
location and in fact could engage in scientific experiments.
So we would be very concerned, Madam
Deputy Speaker, that the minister, and I have confidence having known this
minister for some time, that he has a bit of an independent streak in him and I
cannot see him going off in the wrong direction, although perhaps members
opposite would have more intimate knowledge and information of where the
minister might be headed if one were to give him too much power.
I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that
the minister has a list right now and among them I find some of the, certainly,
the Latin pronunciations of their names almost impossible, so I take him at his
word that these six categories should be included. But perhaps we should be granting the
minister authority to add a No. 7 category on that list, and that is the
Liberal Party of Manitoba as an endangered species.
I am told today that Natalie Pollock,
a well‑known
Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): But she does not have a seat.
Mr. Maloway:
Well,
the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) says she does not have a seat, but I am
sure that one of the six or seven Liberals remaining would be willing to give
up his or her seat to allow the new leader, should it be Natalie Pollock, to
run in a by‑election and to lead the Liberal Party on to greater heights
than it has ever seen before under the current membership.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure
there are other species that we could allow the minister to include on the
endangered species list. I do not know
whether canaries are an endangered species but if they are‑‑I want
to get back to the bill because I do not detect a certain great level of joy on
the part of the few Liberals left in the House at the prospect of the
aforementioned person being the Leader.
The ones who are here are certainly getting a little more animated than
they were before.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do want to
say that the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), when he was making his speech
on this bill, had an excellent analysis of how the environment and the animals
and the species in the environment should coexist.
* (1450)
He talked about the two
fundamentally different ideas that people have regarding the world and its
resources. He spoke about how one school
of thought is that it is people's right to use the resources as they see fit,
and perhaps that developed at a time when in fact it could be argued that the
resources were infinite, that the population of the world was much, much
smaller than it is right now and that one could see almost an unlimited supply.
I could see how, with the population
as small as it was maybe a hundred years ago, that people travelling across
The second view according to the
member for Burrows is that we should be good stewards of the environment, and
regardless of how unlimited the resource is, that we should try to conserve
it. In fact, I can relate to you that
the former City Councillor Magnus Eliason, whom I think, Madam Deputy Speaker,
you know and served with on the council, was in fact into recycling, I
remember, 20 years ago. He had his
little compost bin in the back of his home at
I know that there were many people
years ago, perhaps because of economic necessity, who had to make certain that
the resources lasted as long as they possibly could and, certainly, with the
situation the way it is in the world right now, the view that we should be good
stewards as the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) pointed out is not an
option anymore, that we through government legislation and perhaps vigilant
policing are going to actually have to force people to adopt that view that we
have to be good stewards of the environment, because in fact if we do not, what
we are going to see is our extinction on a long‑term basis.
Now, Madam Deputy Speaker,
[interjection! the member for
You know, I have been telling the
member for the last little while that there are no delegates in this
House. Perhaps he thinks the member for
Crescentwood (Ms. Gray) is a potential delegate and supporter of his and
perhaps he feels that he has to be here for that purpose. In actual fact, he is finding himself in a
position now where Natalie Pollock is out meeting the delegates and tying up
the leadership and jumping ahead of him in the race while he is here and he is
losing the race in fact.
Point of Order
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Yes, if the member wants to discuss leadership,
tell him to go out and I will discuss it with him. Thank you very much.
Mr. Praznik: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is rare that I
come to the defence of a member of the New Democratic Party, but I believe he
was dealing with The Endangered Species Act and was suggesting that it be
expanded beyond animals to perhaps other particular issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker: I believe there really is no point of order,
that it is a dispute over the facts. I
would suggest to the honourable member for Elmwood, indeed, that debate on
reading of the bills should be relevant to the bill.
* * *
Mr. Maloway: Madam Deputy Speaker, just before I leave the
Liberal Party and get back to the text of the speech here, I know that the
member for St. Boniface is a potential leadership aspirant himself. When I told the member for
Madam Deputy Speaker, the member for
Wellington (Ms. Barrett) in her speech on this bill made reference to Ronald
Reagan and his activities as the governor of California and so on as President
of the United States and, while he was not well known for being a progressive
by any stretch, the fact of the matter is that evidently there were measures
taken under his leadership as President of the United States which put the
United States ahead of us in terms of protection of endangered species. In fact, the member for Wellington (Ms.
Barrett) made reference to the redwoods of California and how the people of
California have begun to recognize‑‑while they did not recognize 20
years ago that there was a serious problem with loggers and logging of the
redwoods, they came to grips with that problem in California, and they made
rules and so on to protect what little is left of the species there.
We are seeing that in
* (1500)
Madam Deputy Speaker, we are going
to have to not succumb to those demands.
We are going to have to take steps, arbitrary in some instances, and
suffer the economic penalties and simply pull back and allow the parks and so
on to be protected. The logging and the
loggers will have to look elsewhere for their products.
As a matter of fact, there is a very
interesting development over the last few years when we see the recycling of
newspapers, how the market now for pure, I believe it is bleached, paper and so
on is drying up rather fast and people are, as a matter of practice, demanding
recycled paper. In fact, they cannot
keep up with the demand. I believe the
recycling of newsprint and so on is because most of the newsprint is used up in
the
Clearly, there has to be an economic
incentive, I believe, in the long term, for recycling to work. As long as there is a‑‑you notice
when we put a deposit on cans. If the
deposit is high enough on cans‑‑I remember the former member for
Ellice, Harvey Smith, who was elected back in 1986 and served here for a couple
of years‑‑[interjection! and, I believe, served with you on
council. He introduced a bill for
deposit on cans. The thinking behind it,
and it certainly works in other jurisdictions, is that the higher the deposit
on cans and so on, the more people are going to collect the bottles, collect
the cans, bring them in for a deposit, and the less inclined they will be to
throw the cans away and destroy the environment.
Madam Deputy Speaker, we have all
seen situations, I am sure, on the lakes when you are out boating on the lake
where people have thrown cans into the water, old cans and so on. It is absolutely a disgusting situation to be
walking along a beach and find that you cannot walk around in bare feet because
you are being cut on pieces of glass and bottles and so on that are
around. So we have a major, major mess
on our hands that has to be cleaned up, and it will take time to do it.
Of course, it is incumbent upon the government
to try to work out ways and means to make it both legislatively required that
people take care of the environment but also economically advantageous for
people to do it, because when people are faced with the problem of having to
pay excessive amounts of money because of pollution they are causing and
because of problems they are causing, then and only then will they take the
effort to walk the extra mile and pick up the mess.
We have also seen on the riverbanks,
Madam Deputy Speaker‑‑in fact, people will know that the riverbanks
are quite filled. Well, the Minister of Government Services and Seniors (Mr.
Ducharme) is making gestures. You know,
I am still waiting for his response from last week on his tendering out of the
auditing for the government fleet vehicles.
He promised it the next day, this quick minister. Here we are a week later, and we are hearing
nothing from him.
It is members like the member for
Riel (Mr. Ducharme) whom I have known for some time‑‑I certainly
would suggest to you that he more than likely is a careful sort of individual
who would in fact pick up. He has got a
cottage at the beach and so on. I am
sure that he does not throw cans and bottles and stuff like that around, but we
have to collectively teach our young people to be able to do that.
I do not know how much time I have
left here, but according to my watch‑‑the government, in
introducing this bill‑‑I tell you that we look at the Order Paper
and we see very few bills, and I do not know what is wrong with the government. I think perhaps it is a lack of planning or
they are tied up in the Estimates process to such an extent that they really
cannot come up with much in the way of legislation, but we have seen this now
over the last two or three years, and they have been the government in this
province now for nearly five years.
What we have seen is very, very
limited amount of legislative initiatives on the part of the government. I am not sure why that is. I mean, they just perhaps do not believe in interventionist
type of government. I mean that is
typical of Conservative governments all over the place that they are not very
interventionist by nature. This one has
acted a little bit differently from some of the other governments, and perhaps
that is why it is still kind of holding on after all this time. The whole thing has not come unglued
yet. You know, normally by a year or two
in office the whole thing starts falling apart.
We are seeing signs of that now, but so far they have held together a
little bit.
I think part of that‑‑well,
I will deal with him, the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar)‑‑I will
deal with the other member in a couple of minutes.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Energy and
Mines): Who is this speech helping, Jim? Is this helping you get something off your
chest, or what is it?
Mr. Maloway:
The
Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) who is one heartbeat away from the premiership of
this province is starting to chirp from his seat, and the fact of the matter is
that member knows that there is very little in the way of legislative
initiatives on the part of this government.
There are no more than 10 bills on
the whole agenda. [interjection]
There are largely bills‑‑the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) is
also saying things from his seat, but he should be the first to admit that what
we see here, the 10 bills before the House right now, is really very thin as to
what they are really doing.
An Honourable Member: People are relieved that it is a thin agenda.
Mr. Maloway:
He says the people are relieved that it is a thin agenda so perhaps
their polling machine has determined that perhaps the people do not want‑‑
An Honourable Member: They worry less from us on this side than they
did with you.
Mr. Maloway: The member has some reason to believe that the
public wants 10 rather thin bills before the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have no objection to the minister
bringing in his so‑called minor changes to The Endangered Species
Act. It is an important issue and so on,
but there are certainly a lot of other issues out there that need to be dealt
with, and for the government to be essentially holding off‑‑[interjection!
The Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) refers to The Cemeteries Act. Well, you know that is about the speed at
which this government has been travelling, and it is headed back into it. I mean what we have seen is very, very
limited legislative initiatives by this government, and like I said, maybe its
polling should indicate that this is what it should be doing.
With those very few comments‑‑and
I know that I am running out of time. I
would make some more comments about the Liberals, but I think that perhaps I
could leave it to other speakers to rile them up a little bit and get a
response from them.
Anyway, thank you, Madam Deputy
Speaker. I look forward to coming back
tomorrow perhaps, as early as tomorrow, and dealing with Bill, I think it is 3,
the next bill on the agenda. Thank you.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise to
speak on Bill 2, dealing with endangered species. I am surprised that there is no one else
speaking.
I will start off with just some
general comments in relation to this bill.
You know, it is interesting that this is such a thin bill. There is so much work to be done in terms of
protection of endangered species and their habitat that I think one of the
first things that must be stated is that these, as the minister has said, minor
amendments to The Endangered Species Act, are of concern because if they are
going to open an act, they could really do something positive. They could strengthen a lot of the protection
for endangered species and their habitat, like so many groups and organizations
have been asking them to do.
The government has signed on to the
12 percent campaign sponsored locally by the Naturalists Society. I think it is common knowledge that they
received a failing grade by that organization, by the Endangered Spaces
Campaign, in terms of moving forward and implementing the necessary protection
measures so that we will indeed have 12 percent of all the different ecosystems
protected in
I think it is difficult for people
to understand still. I was reminded of
this last year, when the government introduced Bill 38 which changed The
Wildlife Act, which I will get to in a minute.
Even then, it became evident that certain members of this House still do
not understand that if you want to protect endangered species, you must protect
their habitat.
* (1510)
There is no point in having
protection of owls and foxes and various different kinds of wildlife. If you are going to cut down the trees and
mow down all the natural meadow and wetlands, you are not going to have very
much success in protecting the wild animals that this kind of legislation
refers to. I think that this is an
important point to keep in mind, that we cannot separate out endangered species
from endangered spaces. The two, as we
are being reminded, are interwoven.
It is interesting that the member
for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) would talk about the Liberal Party as an endangered
species in
An Honourable Member: You're the endangered species.
Ms. Cerilli: I
would suggest to the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) that all of us are
endangered species, not because we are politicians and probably the least
favoured profession currently in Canada, thanks to the federal Tories I would
think, but I think that because we are on a collision course in terms of
ecological disaster that people generally, including all wild animals, are
endangered species.
I just want to make some comments
about that, because I remember a couple of days ago I read in the House‑‑it
was International Women's Day‑‑a statement from an international
coalition of scientists. There were 99
Nobel prize winners in that coalition, and they predicted with a lot of
research to back it up that we only have a couple of decades to avert disaster.
We have to realize that the air
quality, the water quality and the soil quality that we depend on to grow our
food and to have the oxygen we need to breathe are all being jeopardized
because of the effects of industrialization and the kind of scientific and
technical‑‑some would say progress‑‑that we have had
very rapidly over the last few centuries and that we have lost touch with the
natural environment and we have lost touch with understanding that we are in
fact dependent on the strength of the connections in the ecosystem, that we are
dependent on all of the various ecosystems being maintained for our livelihood
and for our continuation as a species.
It is common to hear young children
talk about this, because I think that the generation coming up that are now
going through school are far and away more knowledgeable about the endangered
planet that we live on. They will be
quick to talk about how every time an endangered species goes on the list as an
endangered species, every time an endangered species becomes extinct, that
brings our own extinction that much closer.
A number of people across the House
will say that I am just full of gloom and doom, and I think they called me part
of a soap opera the other day when I was talking about child abuse and violence
against children and street youth, but I take very seriously the threat, and
perhaps those of us who have a chance to pay more attention to environment and
natural resources issues do that because we have a chance to get more
information.
I think that one of the problems
with this government is that they have been so incredibly controlling of
information that we want to get out to the public so that they can be empowered
to act, so that they can be empowered to protect their water source that is
providing water for them and their family and their livestock or their
garden. As well, the same thing goes for
protecting soil and protecting the air quality in the region where they have to
live and breathe, and I get quite concerned with the jokes that are made by the
members opposite when we try to raise issues of difficult decisions that need
to be made so that we can somehow negotiate a course so that we are not going
to have even greater unemployment as we try to do the things that are necessary
to curtail the overconsumption of resources that is going on in our world and
in our local community.
The Conservative government does not
seem to understand that principles of sustainable development mean that you
deal with that overconsumption, and that is why things like the NAFTA, the
North American Free Trade Agreement, are so dangerous, because they are further
going to tie us into the North American economy, the U.S. economy, and they are
going to force more overconsumption of resources.
That agreement is going to mean that
we no longer have the sovereignty over developing legislation so that we can
say in this region we have to reduce the number of trees that are cut or the
amount of ore that is mined or the amount of fish that is caught. When we lose that sovereignty over Canadian
resources because we have signed an agreement that says that we have to provide
resources to the
If the member for St. Norbert (Mr.
Laurendeau) cannot understand the relationship between NAFTA‑‑
Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): I have no problem understanding your
relationship, Marianne. The problem is
understanding you, you and your NDP philosophy.
Stop teaching us about Marxist‑Leninist. Go back to your communist country.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Cerilli: I
would suggest that the member for St. Norbert would begin to understand the
relationship between trade, overconsumption and destruction of the environment,
and it is really not that difficult. [interjection! Oh, a couple of years ago
when I became the Environment critic, that is when I really began to understand
the threat to our health because of the elimination of‑‑
Mr. Laurendeau: What did the NDP do about it when they were
government, Marianne?
Ms. Cerilli:
Well,
the kind of economic policies that reduce species on the planet‑‑
Mr. Laurendeau: You do not talk about Manfor during the NDP
era.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Ms. Cerilli: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The kind of economic policies that have been
practised by this government and by the federal government which are negligent
of providing the kind of protection for wilderness by encouraging business to
be able to pollute and not have to provide the proper scrubbers, the proper
emission controls, even taxes, so that they will pay the costs that they are
requiring by the demand they are putting on the environment.
Those are the kinds of policies that
we need to have that are part of an endangered spaces or an endangered species
commitment. It is not going to just come
from some little act with a few word changes.
As I said awhile ago, we do not have that much time. If we really care about having the kind of
world that we have enjoyed for our grandchildren, then we have to start acting
now. I would suggest that if the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) was really interested in change to
protect endangered species, this legislation would have been far more
substantial.
I am quite concerned that now we are
only talking about indigenous species to
With the kind of megaproject
development that goes on now in Canada, with the kind of forced migration and
movement of things like deer, bears, wolves, birds that require wetlands, with
the kind of encroachment on their habitat that is forced by development, I do
not think it is wise to chop the country up into fictitious, in environmental
and ecological terms, political boundaries, Madam Deputy Speaker. Not only do animals not vote, they do not pay
attention to our political boundaries, so they do not know if they are in
* (1520)
So those are some of the kinds of
concerns that I think will be expressed when this bill goes to public hearings.
The definitions that are being
encouraged by scientists and by those who are spending a large amount of their
time and energy as advocates for a safe environment in ecology, the kind of
definitions that these people are putting forward are paying attention to the
connections in the ecosystem, and they are starting to give more broad
definitions, not narrowing the definitions as this piece of legislation is
doing.
We need to start realizing that we
are part of the ecosystem, that we are not superior in the sense‑‑we
may be more intelligent, sometimes I wonder‑‑[interjection! Well,
that was a nice comment from the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). Thank
you very much.
The point I am making is that as the
definitions are narrowed, we are ignoring that we are part of the ecosystem and
we are not superior. We are dependent on
wild animals. We are dependent on the
survival of wild ecosystems. I am really
concerned about a trend that is happening.
It has to do with scientific applications to agriculture and genetic
engineering. I am concerned that we are so dramatically changing domestic
livestock and farm products, crops, and at the same time we are eliminating the
natural habitat and we are eliminating the natural wild species, that we are
setting ourselves up to eliminate our own food supply.
What I have been learning about the
way that we are changing a lot of the domestic livestock that we rely on for
food is that when we move, for example, to develop a type of wheat, durum
wheat, which used to have 26 chromosomes and now has 13 chromosomes so that it
is rust and pest resistant, that has changed the biochemistry of wheat, and it
is making it more difficult for our body to digest it. What that is meaning is we are actually
having to spend more calories to digest food.
What happens is we then ingest more food to meet those calories. If that food is also high in fat, more of
those calories are stored in our body.
This may be a bit of a biochemistry lesson for some of the members
opposite, but what I am saying is our food is becoming less nutritious; the
food that is being genetically engineered is lacking in enzymes. It is the same thing that is happening to the
soil, where the soil is being depleted due to the amount of nitrogen and
ammonia from chemical use, and it is affecting the enzyme content. That, in turn, is affecting the enzymes that
are in the food that is grown in the soil.
Those enzymes are so vital. Even
though they are only trace quantities in our bodily systems, they are vital to
our being able to digest properly food that we eat.
It is related to something else I
learned from a chemist I met with recently, when we were talking about how our
bodily systems are changing. What is
happening is more and more of the oxygen we take in is having to be used to
digest our food, our liver function, and what is happening is less and less of
that oxygen is available for our respiratory function. We all know that we need oxygen to breathe,
and some would think that this may be related to the increase in respiratory
problems like asthma.
An Honourable Member: Ozone.
Ms. Cerilli: Ozone is a good point raised by the member for
Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), plus the fact that radiation, methane gas are affecting
the energy systems that we have. What is
happening is because the air quality is also decreasing and there are more
chemicals in the air, not only is our body requiring more oxygen to meet its
bodily functions, but there is less oxygen available in the air. This could also be related to why there is
such an increase in cancer and other immune deficiency illnesses which are
becoming called the illnesses of the 21st Century. By that, I mean things like AIDS, things like
allergies, bronchitis, those kinds of things.
When you talk about AIDS, it is quite frightening to start to learn how
some of the viruses that we are being exposed to have possibly been mutated by
the kinds of chemicals that are being dispersed into the environment.
It is interesting to put this into
context of endangered species because as people I hope that we all realize that
we are still evolving. It is important
to recognize that, just as has happened throughout all of our existence on the
planet, our evolution is going to be determined by the state of our
environment. Is there enough food? How do we have access to the food? What is the air quality? What is the water quality?
All these things are having an
effect, and that process that I just described of how oxygen is being more used
in bodily functions, such as detoxing the air that we breathe and detoxing the
food that we eat, are causing us to possibly develop a larger liver, because
that is one of the organs that deals with toxins. When I was younger, I used to
eat a lot of beef liver. I stopped
eating beef liver a while ago, but now I have really stopped eating beef liver
because I think that studies are showing that a lot of the livestock that we
draw liver from is also having to process and oxidize more chemical in the feed
that they are given. I am concerned that
there are more and more dioxins and toxins in the meat that we eat, and we can
look at the way, as I get back to this theme I was just talking about in terms
of genetic engineering and domestic animals, these animals are more and more
reliant on artificially manufactured feed and they are no longer fed whole
grains and natural food and that, in turn, is ingested by us when we eat them.
These are some of the more
scientific reasons why people are vegetarian.
I, myself, am not a vegetarian, but I have tried to watch the kind of
red meat in particular that I ingest because of the large quantities of
antibiotics and artificial feed that they are often fed and how that, in turn,
can lodge itself in our body and in the fat tissue in our body.
I have to come back to talking a
little bit about this government's record on dealing with wildlife issues. I am glad to hear that members opposite are
remembering some of the things I am saying.
That is good. I would question
how this piece of legislation fits in with the legislation on wildlife that the
government brought in a few sessions ago when they changed the wildlife
management areas to allow development in those wildlife management areas.
I would suggest that now that they
have fulfilled their objective by building the office complex in the Oak
Hammock Marsh, they would do a favour to endangered species by going back to
having development prohibited in wildlife management areas, that if they are
really interested in endangered species protection, they would have areas like
wildlife management areas prohibiting development, that it is quite
embarrassing for a number of people in Manitoba that we now have a wildlife act
because of a couple of ministers' desire to have a conference centre in a
wildlife management area, that we now have a wildlife act that means you can
put any kind of industry and development in a wildlife management area.
* (1530)
The other area where this province
is sorely lacking in protection of endangered species is in having bird
sanctuaries, recognized bird sanctuaries.
This province has no high level established bird sanctuaries, and there
are a number of birds that are threatened in our province. Again, if they were really serious in doing
something about protecting endangered species, we would have a higher number
and quality of bird sanctuaries in
This is one of the things I wanted
to take a look at, because this has to do specifically with this government's
record on endangered species. The
government in
According to the national report on
the status of wilderness protection efforts in Canada issued today by the World
Wildlife Fund, the 1992 endangered spaces progress report which was released
simultaneously in Winnipeg as well as in Ottawa at a news conference notes that
Manitoba, along with most other senior Canadian governments, must pick up its
pace of wilderness protection efforts if Canada's rich natural diversity is to
be preserved.
The members should take note that it
is not just me, the little member for Radisson, saying this, that this is
coming from world‑renowned scientists, from world‑recognized
environment organizations, and this goes way beyond any local activist. This is the World Wildlife Fund.
To date only one‑quarter of
the country's natural regions have been represented with the protective
areas.
The government is getting a message
loud and clear that they are failing to realize that they have to look both at
endangered spaces and endangered species together. This legislation seems to move toward that a
little bit.
I was reading here earlier, I do
believe, where‑‑if I can find it. [interjection! Yes, I will take
my time. There was a reference that
recognized that flora and fauna must be included in a definition of endangered
species, and that is the important point I was trying to make.
The other thing I want to comment on
before I move on a little bit is that there is an incredible amount of paper
that is generated. The government spends
a lot of money on green and purple booklets, on recycled fibre like this. Unfortunately in these kinds of booklets it
is often the only place where they are using that kind of paper, and they are
not pushing forward to make sure that that is in every copier machine in the
Civil Service.
I am concerned that when it comes to
campaigns like the Endangered Spaces Campaign, what this government is really
interested in is purely public relations.
I know that, for example, the
Sustainable Development round table, I think, received some $400,000 simply for
the contract to develop its material, and when the election comes around,
people I think are going to see through a lot of nice purple and green
booklets.
They are going to be looking for the
kind of changes in legislation, in government programs, the increase in
staffing, the increase in money to research and development. That would mean that this government has some
real intention to do something about the fact that so many wild animals and
habitats are threatened in
I have another interesting article
here, and it is an article that was in the October 10, 1992, Free Press:
An Honourable Member: Who wrote it?
Ms. Cerilli: It
was written by Mr. Werier.
It talks about the fact that the
province received a D rating from the World Wildlife Fund on meeting its
commitment to protect wildlife. One of
the criticisms is that there is no criteria for identifying areas to be
preserved. One of the other problems is
that the staff who would do this kind of work have been eliminated from the
Civil Service. We have a real shortage
of paid expertise in this province to do the kind of research that is so
painstaking and time consuming that is necessary to track animals to monitor
their migratory and feeding routes and to make sure that those areas are going
to be protected and that those animals are going to be then protected.
There is also very little data on
the flora and fauna of
One of the things that we are always
asking for from this side of the House is that we start having basin‑wide
reviews when we are looking at water diversions or hydro dams. That just means that we can start to
understand what it is that we are doing to our natural environment, because as
we put in more dioxins and dam rivers, changing their flow, what we are doing
is we are eliminating the micro‑organisms that are relied on by the fish
to eat. Then you eliminate the fish, and
then you eliminate the whales, and then you affect the people who also rely on
those animals.
It is that linking and understanding
of the linking that supports what I was saying earlier about how every time a
species goes on the endangered list or becomes extinct, we are one step closer
to our own perilous extinction.
I wanted to look at, a little bit,
some of the recommendations from our party task force on Environment and
Natural Resources. It deals with a
number of areas. It tries to frame our
approach to natural resource management in some kind of basic philosophy of
ecology. That is really important,
because that has not yet happened. I
would agree that has not happened yet anywhere in
Let me see which one I should select
to talk about here. I will try this
one. The
* (1540)
This raises the important issue of
allowing for the traditional trapping and hunting in the North and in areas
that have been shown to‑‑
An Honourable Member: You cannot have it both ways.
Ms. Cerilli: The member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer) says that
you cannot have it both ways. hese are
the kinds of issues that we have to negotiate with. It is not an either/or thing. Aboriginal
people for thousands of years in this part of the world had harmonious existence
with the natural environment. It is only
because of the kind of economy of the European influence that that has been
disrupted. It is important to realize
that there is no reason why there still cannot be the ability in
Those are the kinds of issues, I
think, that it is going to take a government to deal with that has some courage
and has the ability to bring together the various sectors of our province, and
that is the kind of approach that is necessary.
I do not think that is the approach that this government has been
taking.
From what I hear, when I talk to
various bands‑‑I just got another letter from a band that is
concerned that there is a development going in that is going to put more ammonia
into the river that they rely on for fishing, and they do not even have
information given to them about how to participate in the environmental
assessment procedure. That goes back to
what I was saying earlier. If this
government is interested in protecting endangered species, then they would be
interested in supporting the individuals in our province that are going to do
that work. They would be more forthcoming with information, with the procedural
information, with the factual and research information that would help people
intervene in an environmental assessment, so that they could help protect
wildlife and habitat in our province.
Over and over again, we are reminded
because of various reports in the news from other parts of the world that
I do not think that this is
something that we should be proud of. I
do not believe that this is something that can be, oh, just another cost of
being competitive. If being competitive
means that we sacrifice wildlife, if it means that we sacrifice the integrity
of natural ecosystems, then I think that we better look for some new principles
and a new approach to dealing with the economy, because there are not too many
more generations that are going to be able to be competitive in that kind of a
fashion.
So when this government talks about
how a deficit or a debt in a provincial government is mortgaging the future of
generations of the province, I would disagree.
I would say the kind of economic policy that encourages rampant
competition, that encourages unchecked development, that encourages the kind of
excess and overconsumption that their policies are encouraging, that is the
kind of problem that is mortgaging the future generations of our province.
I think that is the kind of
sentiment that I will leave in closing, that we just do not have the right to
endanger species of wildlife. We do not
have the right to eliminate those species and the habitat for the generations
that are going to come after us. Thank
you very much.
Bill 3‑‑The
Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 3
(The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant le petrole et
le gaz naturel et apportant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois)
standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave to permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 5‑‑The
Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 5
(The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du
Nord) standing in the name of the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Well, I guess with that greeting, Madam
Deputy Speaker, I will make my comments brief and hopefully kind, not like my
colleague, the member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway). I will certainly refrain from taking any
further shots at the Liberal Party over here.
I mean, I feel we are dealing with an issue. Regardless of the rank and file and belief of
the Liberal Party, we can stay within the limits of the bill.
I would like to make some comments
on Bill 5, perhaps not just comments on the bill itself or the amendments to
the bill, but I feel there are some other issues that this government and the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) could undertake to further pursue the
needs of the northern communities within this province, their needs that may
relate to the road conditions, to the housing, to their access for services.
Northern communities, I am sure we
are all aware, are certainly not like the communities in central and southern
Madam Deputy Speaker, northern
communities, and I feel that roads‑‑I know other members have made
comments about the road conditions and how they relate to the northern
communities. I may not have in my
constituency some of the communities that previous members have discussed in
their debate on Bill 5, but I have had the opportunity to go with our northern
members on tours and that and see first‑hand some of the conditions of
the roads, of the housing, of the living conditions that do exist in northern
Manitoba.
* (1550)
Within my constituency, roads, Madam
Deputy Speaker, for the northernmost communities, are in need. The conditions of some of the roads that I
have travelled on, you could not travel with a Bombardier on it; you could not
travel with a two‑wheeled bicycle.
The conditions of the roads are absolutely atrocious.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the housing
that I have seen in my communities and other northern communities are ones
that, I think‑‑this minister and this government should expand The
Northern Affairs Act to be able to allow for these northern communities to have
the access to better themselves, not just patch up, patch here, patch there, a
bill, amend here and change the wording here, change the wording there, but
expand so that the people and the people responsible within the communities,
the councils and the community leaders can access, can have some direction that
they can take to be able to expand their level of living, expand the fact that
there is a need.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a
few comments on the bill itself, and as always, you sort of wonder when the
minister, whether it be the Northern Affairs minister (Mr. Downey), whether it
be the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), always says that we would like
to present these few minor changes, minor changes to amend, to do this or do
that.
I think this government and the
ministers opposite, when they are going to make amendments to any bill, should
look further than changing a little bit of language, changing a sentence here
and a sentence there and providing words for people to dwell on.
Some of the bills that we have had
presented before us here are so minuscule to the fact that they are not really
dealing with the whole realm of the problem.
The problem is that there is a great need out there and a great need in
northern Manitoba, a great need in rural Manitoba, and is this government doing
its fair share of participating with the northern communities and rural
communities to get these northern communities moving and giving them the access
to allow them, to assist them, in promoting the future of economic development,
the future of better roads, the future of access to services. They keep dealing with one little problem
here this time, another little problem next time, another problem here, another
problem there‑‑patchwork‑‑instead of dealing with the
issues and working for a whole, changing the act so that communities would be
able to do more than just patchwork within their area. I feel that is the way to go, but it seems
like this government and this minister want to just patch things up and just
keep things moving along so that there would be something else to do for them
in the next session, or wait instead of dealing with it when the time is there
to deal with it.
Certain comments, Madam Deputy
Speaker, from the act that seem to show that the minister is thinking on the
fact that, well, perhaps there is a lot of extra work for the communities and
the councils within the existing act, and feels that some of the changes are
going to assist them in achieving certain things for their communities, but we
have to also probably look at some possible implications for the
amendment. One aspect of the bill,
interpretation of the bill, that I would see is that communities can assume a
certain amount of control over the development of land located both within and
surrounding their boundaries. Well, you
do not want to, I feel, give total control away.
You have to have some say as to how
Crown lands or property within the communities are being used. You have to have input from the community
leaders as to what is best for their communities and what is best for their
areas to be able to develop, to be able to put some roads in, to be able to get
some residential development, to be able to build community halls, to do many
things in a community that would benefit.
I feel that local community councils
should have‑‑you cannot just take away something from these people
who represent their communities, who are representing the people within their
communities, to better develop the living conditions and education conditions
within the community. You have to have
consultation. These people have to be
able to be provided with an access so that they can have a say in what is going
to go on within their community. You
cannot just say, well, here we go. We are going to leave it up to the minister
to decide this or the minister to decide that because the process is there or
whatnot, and we cannot just leave that, Madam Deputy Speaker. We have to say, well, sure, in certain
situations because of the system as it is, with the bureaucratic timetable and
bureaucratic work that has been done in the past and perhaps somewhat in the
near future, we have to in certain situations allow the communities and the
community leaders to be able to access the right to be able to come through
with a project, or a road or whatever it may be, with some expediency, with
some haste so that the community people are not waiting for years and months at
a time wanting a project to go through because of all the bureaucratic system.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I mean it
seems that on one hand you are saying, well, we are here to help you out, and
on the other hand, you are saying, well, there is a limit to how we are going
to help you out.
I also would have a feeling that I
would be careful on how this amendment to The Northern Affairs Act will reflect
on renewals of Crown land permits in and around the northern communities
without the consultation. It would seem
that again, on the one hand, the minister is saying, well, we are going to try
and help you out by speeding up the system on one hand, and then on the other
hand, he is saying, well, without consultation as to renewal of Crown land
permits, it is going to be like an unweighted balance.
An Honourable Member: A pendulum.
Mr. Clif Evans: Pendulum, if you want to say.
Madam Deputy Speaker, getting back
to fact of the specific needs in northern communities, I feel that there is
always going to be a need for certain services and a need for housing. I feel that the communities in northern
* (1600)
Community planning within these
areas is difficult at most times. You
need the resource for surveying. You
need the resource to see whether people can acquire titles, whether the fact
that an access road would be required, whether the need to upgrade the economic
development within their community, so community planning is often a problem.
I do not want to see that this
amendment and this minister, I do not want to see the fact that he is going to
take away from these community people that access and the availability to them
so that they can in fact receive the proper direction in which to take.
I would again like to embellish on
the road situation, and particularly, as I mentioned earlier, that the road
systems in most of our northern communities are unusable, if there are any
there at all. I realize and understand
to a point that northern communities, and we have the fact of winter roads,
Madam Deputy Speaker, are another point in the matter that I feel between the
Minister of Transportation (Mr. Driedger) and the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey). Continue with that
program; continue with, I guess, the lead.
Take the lead so that these northern communities have access to the winter
road system. If they are not going to be
able to deal with the situation in hand as far as providing all‑year‑round
roads for these people, I would think that they would provide and keep on
providing the transportation end of it, the road system, the winter road system
so that these people can access services in the winter and continue to try and
develop their own areas at least to a level that will accommodate and provide
better services and provide better feeling for needs in the northern communities.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would think
that the ministry of Northern Affairs in their wisdom prepare, if they are
feeling that there is going to be money saved or money available for other
projects, if the minister's amendments, as he says in his dialogue, should save
money and that the present system is expensive and consumes a lot of time‑‑I
would hope that then the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) would use
finances that are going to be made available, if they are, through what he
wants to do partly in this bill, that he use it for training, for job training
and for education within the northern communities, or use this money, turn it
back over to develop the northern communities even further with economic
development.
The minister says it is a good idea,
and I am sure that he has thought about that.
However, we do want to see some action on it. We do not want to see any money that the
minister feels he is going to save by doing this and doing that for northern
communites going right back in the general revenue and pay off the debt
service.
An Honourable Member: You would not want to do that.
Mr. Clif Evans: No, we want to see it thrown back into
northern communities, back into rural communities. [interjection! Well, that is
true. I mean, we are thinking along the
same lines when it comes to that except that this government thinks, well,
everything that we can save or possibly cut from somewhere else, we will throw
back into general revenue. Well,
sometimes that does not work. You throw
it back to the communities. The money
you say you are saving, if you say you are saving money, then put that money
back into where you are saving it, back into the areas that you are saving it,
not into just general revenue where they can accommodate themselves in any
which way.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like,
to conclude, to say that I would like to see this Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Downey) work alongside with the communities and community councils.
An Honourable Member: I would like to see that too.
Mr. Clif Evans: The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
says, I am sure we all would. But the
fact of the matter is are we going to be?
Is anybody going to do anything about it? [interjection! Well, I would,
Madam Deputy Speaker, like to say that the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey), Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) work
alongside with people, consult with the people, do whatever is possible to be
able to improve the conditions in rural and northern Manitoba so that they are
able to provide for their people all the necessary services, all the necessary
education, housing, roads, so that these people can start thinking of the
future and be able to progress to a level that we would all like to exist in.
I would say to this minister and
encourage this minister to not only stop here with these few amendments but to
go further within the Department of Northern Affairs to do what is necessary to
be able to provide for the people in northern communities with again a life
that we should all be accustomed to.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will be very brief,
but I would like to put a few comments on Bill 5, The Northern Affairs
Amendment Act‑‑[interjection]
Nothing usually, coming from the Tories.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the majority
of the changes that are in this bill, after discussion with the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), it is strictly housekeeping. I think there should have been a lot more
meat in this bill in regard to the northern people‑‑[interjection!
Pardon?
No, I think there have been a lot of
comments made in regard to the North on housing, road conditions. It is true, people who have travelled up
north know what it is‑‑[interjection! Yes, I have travelled up
north. I have lived up north, I have
lived in Thompson, I have lived in Bissett and I remember very well coming out
the first time. I was one of the first
ones to come out on the road from Bissett to
It was interesting, it was an early
part. I remember just flying into Bissett
and I did not know what I was going into.
I went to work for the San Antonio Gold Mines up there in the
office. It was great, beautiful country,
fine people to work with, and then I went there in the fall and came out in the
spring and, like I say, it was the first time.
There used to be, it was a winter road before that, but then they had
built a road during the winter and it was the first time it was going to be an
all‑weather road. I think it took
us something like six or seven hours in early spring to come out of there.
In some of the other communities
that exist today we see those roads, because I was up north in Norway House
area a couple of years ago and winter roads, the road from Bissett to
Wasagaming, when you realize what they have to go through and put up with, and
then you look at the housing and I think all these things should have been
addressed in this bill and make the people‑‑[interjection! Well, we
had a fine gentleman, the member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) speaking today
and saying not to attack the other parties.
* (1610)
I feel the same way because I like
the friendliness of the people whom we deal with whether they are in the
opposition or in government. I think we
all owe respect to the members no matter in what party they are. Mind you, I will not always be nice because I
have another resolution I would like to introduce and speak on and attack the
people for what they did yesterday. That
is okay. That will be another
issue. On this one here, like I said, I
would be very brief.
An Honourable Member: Will you be supporting it?
Mr. Gaudry:
This
bill, yes, we will send it to committee, and I think we should ask the people
to come if they have amendments. They should make it public and have the people
put their input into these. I think it
is time. You talk about consultation
here in your speech, Mr. Minister, and I think that is what has lacked with
this government, consultation. They do
study after study and that is not what we want.
Consultation, consultation, yes, that is fine but I think you have to‑‑[interjection!
No, no, I mean you consult but act upon the consultation after it has been
given for the work that the people want.
I think we have to listen to Manitobans
and work with Manitobans, but not study after study and not do anything with
these studies. [interjection! Well, I am not so sure. I think they have had their fair share but
the government of the day, I think, can say the same thing because we have seen
a lot of studies and nothing has happened. [interjection! Who said shame on
you? I am just stating facts here.
I have always said I had integrity,
so that is part of my integrity here, to say what I feel. I am being honest when I say that. [interjection!
No, no, I would never cross the floor, because the Liberals are on the way up
now, especially if I am going to run for the leadership. [interjection! I think
Kevin is doing a good job too, so there is big competition out there.
I am looking at Subsection 9(2.1),
which has been added and I was not too sure why, but looking at what the
minister had to say in regard to it, he says, "We have added, Mr. Speaker,
subsection 9(2.1) to establish the existing process in legislation. A failure to do so would require repetitive
consultation and give the volume of Crown land permits issued in northern
As a result of this section, the
minister's approval will not be required for a renewal of a permit of
occupation or use. It seems to me that
according to the strict reading of the act, the minister should not have to
give his approval. Maybe someone took
issue with this and it needed clarification in the act. I do not think this is an issue, but perhaps
the government will enlighten us in committee on this.
An Honourable Member: You shall be enlightened.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, but it takes you time. It should have been done here without any
problem when you introduced the bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the act also
changes "letters patent" to "articles of incorporation"
throughout. This is just in keeping with
the current practice and does not seem to me to be anything other than
housekeeping. As I said, the meat of the
amendment appears to be in the changes of Section 10 of the act: If consent or
approval of the PUB is required, the consent or approval of the minister may be
substituted.
That is a good idea, because the
minister's approval should be substituted once in a while, maybe more often.
An Honourable Member: Substitute the minister.
Mr. Gaudry:
The
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) says substitute the minister. Maybe that is another solution to the
Northern Affairs problem.
An Honourable Member: What are you talking about, Neil?
Mr. Gaudry: I
have not started on you yet.
If the PUB is there to make an
independent, nonpartisan decision with respect to the northern municipalities,
why is the government taking away the power of this body? Should the North have the benefit of the
expertise of the PUB to make a decision without government influence?
Madam Deputy Speaker, as I say, it
is just a housekeeping bill, and I think maybe there should be more into this
bill. I am sure there will be amendments
that will be brought forward. I think we
should consult and process the consultation and implement what our northern
people want in regard to helping them out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I will
conclude here. There will be nobody else
speaking on behalf of the Liberal Party.
We will send it to committee, and we look forward to debating this in
committee and having the input from the northern communities. Thank you very
much.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Deputy Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 8‑‑The
Insurance Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 8
(The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances),
standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed!
Bill 10‑‑The
Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 10
(The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the honourable member
for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 11‑‑The
Regional Waste Management Authorities,
The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 11
(The Regional Waste Management Authorities, The Municipal Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les offices regionaux de gestion
des dechets, modifiant la Loi sur les municipalites et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑‑The
International Trusts Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 12
(The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies internationales), standing
in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 13‑‑The
Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 13
(The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi modifiant
la Loi constituant en corporation le fonds de participation des travailleurs du
Manitoba), standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie).
An
Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam
Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to
permit the bill to remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 14‑‑The
Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 14
(The Personal Property Security and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi
concernant les suretes relatives aux biens personnels et apportant des
modifications correlatives a d'autres lois), standing in the name of the
honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 16‑‑The
Public Schools Amendment Act
Madam Deputy Speaker: To resume debate on second reading of Bill 16
(The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles
publiques), standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is there leave to permit the bill to remain
standing? [agreed]
What is the will of the acting
government House leader?
Hon. Jim Ernst (Acting Government House Leader):
I believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you
canvass the House, there may be a will to call it six o'clock.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed!
(Mr. Speaker in the
Chair)
Mr. Speaker:
The
hour being 6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. tomorrow (Thursday).