LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
June 1, 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
Jeffrey Monias, Corey Monias, Maggie Monias and others requesting the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) to consider making, as a major priority, the establishment of a
solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Ovide Mercredi, Phil Fontaine, Sydney Garrioch and others requesting the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider making, as a major priority, the establishment
of a solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Donna Guerette, Marilyn Halbert, Yvonne Sanderson and others requesting the
Premier (Mr. Filmon) to consider making, as a major priority, the establishment
of a solvent abuse treatment centre in northern
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Bob Brightnose, Bernice Scatch, Nora McLeod and others requesting the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) to consider making, as a major priority, the establishment of a
solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, I bet to present the petition of
Yvonne Manoakeesick, Vincent Mason, Diana Wood and others requesting the Premier
(Mr. Filmon) to consider making, as a major priority, the establishment of a
solvent abuse treatment facility in northern
* * *
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Hickes). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent abuse
problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Maloway). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr.
Clerk: The petition of the
undersigned citizens of the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100
crimes in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Lathlin). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS there is a very serious solvent
abuse problem in northern
WHEREAS according to the RCMP over 100 crimes
in Thompson alone in 1992 were linked to solvent abuse; and
WHEREAS there are no facilities to deal
with solvent abuse victims in northern
WHEREAS for over three years, the
provincial government failed to proclaim the private member's anti‑sniff
bill passed by the Legislature and is now proposing to criminalize minors
buying solvents even though there are no treatment facilities in northern
WHEREAS for nine years, the 25 Chiefs who
comprise the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, supported by medical officials,
police and the area Member of Parliament, have proposed a pilot treatment
project known as the Native Youth Medicine Lodge; and
WHEREAS successive federal Ministers of
Health have failed to respond to this issue with a commitment; and
WHEREAS the
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* (1335)
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Acting Chairperson of Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the First
Report of the Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): Your Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections presents the following as its First Report.
Your committee met on Tuesday, April 27,
1993, at 5 p.m. in Room 254 of the
Your committee adopted at its May 31, 1993
meeting the following recommendations:
MOTION:
THAT the Standing Committee on Privileges
and Elections advertise extensively within
MOTION:
THAT this committee limit the time of oral
presentations to 20 minutes per presenter with up to a further 10 minutes for
questioning by committee members, and that the 20‑minute presentation
limit be included in the appropriate advertisements.
MOTION:
THAT following the public hearing process,
staff of the department responsible for The Freedom of Information Act draft a
report to be presented to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections by
March 31, 1994, for their debate and approval and later presentation to the
House.
Your committee reports that it has
concluded the organizational process to establish public hearings for the
review of The Freedom of Information Act.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable member for
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has considered certain resolutions, directs me
to report progress and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the Manitoba
Department of Health.
MINISTERIAL
STATEMENTS
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I have a statement for the House.
Mr. Speaker, honourable members, today I
had the pleasure of announcing, along with Mr. Monte Hummel of the World
Wildlife
This regulation will preclude mining,
commercial forestry, hydro‑electric development or other activities that
could significantly impact natural habitats within the wildlife management area
and will protect the area for future designation as a national park. This action demonstrates our commitment to
the proposed
The campaign's goal is to protect
representative portions of
The negotiations between Canada Parks
Service, the LGD of Churchill, local native representatives and the Department
of Natural Resources have been wide‑ranging and constructive in respect
to possible national park establishment in the Churchill region.
Negotiations over the proposed park area
will continue. Provisions are in place to maintain local and traditional uses
in the wildlife management area. As
well, this regulation does not‑‑I repeat‑‑does not
prejudice any native land entitlement negotiations that may be included in this
area.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to respond
to the minister's comments, because the park that has been negotiated for the
community of Churchill is mostly in the
I am glad that the government is going to
continue negotiations with the local people, because it has to be looked at as
an area to be used for tourism and an area to be used as a park, but also, not
to exclude the usage of the local residents and the aboriginal users of that
area. It is very important that is
looked at and considered very strongly.
With it becoming a national park,
hopefully when they develop this into a national park and hire personnel to
staff it as a national park, I hope the minister will encourage his federal
counterparts to ensure that local residents‑‑or insist that local
residents are given opportunities to be employed at that park.
Whether or not it takes training dollars
to get people of the area qualified, because there is such high unemployment in
the community of Churchill, and they are relying on the assistance of this
government for the park as they are for the spaceport, a rail line, I hope the
minister will insist that local people are hired, adequate training is put in
place and will make sure that the aboriginal users of the area and the local
residents of the area are not jeopardized in any way because those are areas we
have used for years and years.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1340)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to join with the minister and to recognize what is indeed
a considerable achievement. We are
moving, albeit extraordinarily slowly, one could almost say at a snail's pace,
towards our commitment to endangered spaces in the province of
Unfortunately, it comes just one day after
the announcement of a parks policy in
So while they are prepared to protect
those that will hopefully and soon come under federal jurisdiction, it is, I
think, unfortunate that the minister has not taken exactly the same kind of
long‑term strategy with regard to the parks within his own jurisdiction.
This is a good step in the Endangered
Spaces Program and I look forward to hearing other announcements.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Maple Leaf
Fund
Transaction
Review
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the public is repulsed with some
of the examples of greed and profit for funds received under the Immigrant
Investment Fund, examples where people got a hundred‑thousand‑dollar
fee‑‑Mr. Kozminski‑‑for managing a vacant lot adjacent
to the Broadway building, examples of garages and car washes flipping and
flipping and flipping again so that outrageous amounts of money are made,
examples of $622,000 for the Maple Leaf Fund paying Mr. Kozminski a fee for
managing one of his own properties.
On page 31 of the report, the report
states that the government tabled a part dealing with the Maple Leaf Fund: The terms of our engagement did not extend to
an exhaustive investigation to determine whether all related party transactions
had been adequately disclosed.
I would like to ask the Deputy Premier
(Mr. Downey) whether, in fact, the internal review that was announced by the
government on March 26, 1991, included those transactions?
* (1345)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in terms of the Leader of
the Opposition's preamble, that is part and parcel why, if he goes back to the
audit that was prepared and submitted back in December of 1992, there are many
suggestions around the whole issue of the original application, the reasonableness
of any projects, the amount of‑‑in fact, there is a suggestion,
which we endorsed, in terms of capping the amount of fees that promoters and
developers can, in fact, take from any individual project.
Again, he is pointing to deficiencies that
existed in the program that were outlined in my letter back in March of 1991 to
the federal government indicating what our role was in terms of the review of
economic impact in our province and what we saw as the federal government's
role.
In terms of the related party
transactions, when the matter was reviewed internally back in March, April of
1991, at that particular point in time, officials pointed out that while there
might be some general concerns about perception, in terms of the guidelines
that existed, there were no violations of guidelines that were in place, Mr.
Speaker.
Mike
Bessey
Involvement
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the minister should inform the public
that the government was being threatened with lawsuits on July 22, 1992, which
precipitated the investigation. It was
not the minister riding off on a horse dealing with this issue unilaterally. I have the letter from Mr. Shead.
Getting back to the dates, Mr. Speaker,
there was no internal review and no external review, obviously, of the
connections dealing with the various companies in spite of the fact there were
public allegations. There were questions
I raised in a letter to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of March 25, 1991, about this
issue, and subsequent to that date, about a person named Mike Bessey, a person
described by Manitoba Business as the Premier's No. 1 adviser. The No. 1 adviser to the Premier of Manitoba,
the most powerful person second only to the Premier himself, according to
Manitoba Business, was appointed on September 4, 1991, to the position of
Acting Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism.
What was Mr. Bessey's involvement in these
internal reviews, and what was Mr. Bessey's involvement in recommending a
second approval of the Canadian Maple Leaf Fund, a fund obviously of tremendous
pecuniary interest for Mr. Kozminski?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Once again, the Leader of the Opposition
is absolutely incorrect in his preamble in terms of what precipitated the
review, and it had nothing to do with the letter he refers to. There were other issues that came to light at
our level, and we initiated the review, Mr. Speaker. It had nothing to do with that particular
letter that the Leader of the Opposition is, in fact, referring to.
In terms of Mr. Bessey's role, he was the
Acting Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism for a period of
time. We have outlined on many occasions
the process to the Leader of the Opposition and members of this House. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well
the process.
It is a similar process to that put in
place back in 1986 when he was a part of government, that these matters are
dealt with at an administrative level in terms of the review of the economic
impacts on
Political
Connections
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the minister contradicts
himself. On the one hand, he said, I
dealt with these concerns in my letter I wrote to the government; on the other
hand, he ordered an internal investigation.
He, the minister, promised the public he would have an internal
investigation, and then he goes ahead and has an approval of Mr. Kozminski to
get a next fund after those issues of internal review are allegedly being dealt
with by the Conservatives opposite.
I would like to ask the minister: Who was dealing with and who was
investigating the political connections between the Conservative government of
the day and Mr. Kozminski, a person who is a prominent fundraiser for the
government?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, again, the Leader of the
Opposition is up to his usual approach, his usual attack with any of these
issues, always trying to politicize and impute motives and so on in any one of
these situations.
This audit was conducted on five
individual funds, and there was no political involvement in terms of the
decision making around the Maple Leaf Fund.
It followed the same process that every other fund that was approved, starting
back in 1987, followed.
The treatment of that particular fund was
not treated any differently than any other fund, Mr. Speaker, and I think the
Leader of the Opposition, I am sure, is interested to know that a release
through the press today from
With
* (1350)
Mr. Doer: The minister did not answer the question of
who reviewed the political connections between the government of the day, the
minister of the day, the deputy minister who is the chief political adviser for
a period of time or is chief adviser to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and the
various investors, Mr. Speaker.
We are very concerned about this. We were very concerned about it when the
government first announced the audit.
The audit is very thorough in financial analysis. The public is repulsed by what has happened,
Mr. Speaker, and it is obvious that this is an exercise in greed in terms of
the
The provincial government, the
Conservative government, in 1990, received money from the Canadian Maple Leaf
Fund itself in political donations. I
would like to ask the minister whether the auditor reviewed the political
donations and whether they came appropriately or inappropriately to the Premier
and the Conservative Party of
Mr. Stefanson: Once again, the Leader of the Opposition
follows his usual approach. In fact, he
must have been reading old issues of Hansard because the Leader of the second
opposition party, I believe, raised this very same matter back in March or April
of 1991, if I recall correctly, Mr. Speaker.
Again, he is dealing with issues that do
not relate to the approval process around any Immigrant Investor Fund, and we
have a series of them in
That has absolutely nothing to do with the
review process that the administration of Industry, Trade and Tourism was doing
under his time in government and has been doing under our time in government
since 1988, Mr. Speaker.
The process is the same, the internal
review. Our role is the same. Our role is the review of the economic
benefits to
I am pleased to see that other provinces
are now following the lead of
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, these issues became public. The connections between the Conservative
Party and the Maple Leaf Fund and Mr. Kozminski became public in 1991. The minister himself promised an internal
review to ensure that these matters would be dealt with.
He then proceeded to approve, through his
department, another second issue for the same Mr. Kozminski and the same
Canadian Maple Leaf Fund in November of 1991‑‑which he confirmed
yesterday in the House‑‑subsequent to the appointment of Mr. Bessey
as acting deputy minister of the department.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
minister: Did the auditor review the
role of Mr. Bob Kozminski as chairman of the Conservative spring Premier's
dinner in May of 1993 and its relationship with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and
the Conservative government in terms of approving these funds?
Mr. Stefanson: I cannot help but restate, Mr. Speaker, my
comments to the Leader of the Opposition, that I am totally disgusted with his
approach in terms of dealing with this national issue, and he is doing a
disservice to the entire issue.
I went back and I read his questions back
in April of 1991. Do you think he asks about investor protection in those
questions? No, Mr. Speaker. Does he ask about compliance mechanisms? No.
Does he ask about monitoring protection or anything? No, none of those types of questions. All of a sudden, on the heels of initiatives
of this government in terms of cleaning up this issue, he now starts to try and
politicize the situation and tie one director to this political party.
I have told him what the process is. He knows full well what the process is. He was there when the process was put in
place in terms of the review on the role of
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the only cleaning up that is
going on is some of these developers tied to the Conservative Party. I have asked the minister three times who
investigated the political connections.
Three times, the minister did not answer because nobody investigated
that matter, because the government would not dare have that investigated.
I would like to ask the government who is
investigating the fact that in 1991, after the minister himself and the
government themselves promised an internal review‑‑the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) himself promised an internal review in his Estimates. The Premier himself said that
Who is reviewing the fact that either people
did not see it or did not want to see it in 1991 when the government did not
investigate the connections, did not investigate the second party as the
reports says, and the government did not even ask the auditor to investigate
the second relationships?
Who is dealing with the bigger picture of
why there are verbal agreements on these funds?
Why are there verbal agreements and files missing on other funds? Why is this thing so loose and why is nobody
investigating the political realities or the political connections between Mr.
Kozminski, who is the chair of the Premier's fundraising, and the provincial
government?
* (1355)
Mr. Stefanson: I am not sure where the Leader of the
Opposition is heading with this whole line of questioning about political
connections. Does he want us to go back
to each and every director of each and every fund and find out what political
party they belong to, go back to each individual investor and find out what
political party they belong to? We
certainly know that people who are proponents of some of these funds, and some
of these funds that have problems, are not supporters of the Progressive
Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker.
It is for reasons of having no
politicization that the process was put in place under their government, that
these decisions are made at an administrative level. Decisions around the Maple Leaf Fund were
made the same way as every other fund in terms of stopping at an administrative
level in terms of the process. The role
of the provincial government is to review the economic benefits. The remaining roles are the responsibility of
the federal government. We followed the
same procedure that he was a part of when he was in government, and it is one
that keeps politics out of it.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, he does a pure
disservice to try and create the kind of picture or to try and paint the kind
of picture that he does. He is doing a
disservice to what is a national issue.
We have governments in
Immigrant
Investor Fund
Attorney
General Involvement
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, the very sad part about this debate is that, obviously, whether it was
set up by the New Democratic Party or whether it was added to by the
Conservative Party, it has been badly managed since Day One. That is perfectly clear.
The question is, what is happening today
to protect funds that are still in existence and to protect investors who have,
in fact, contributed those funds?
The first audit was complete in
February. Can the minister tell the
House if upon receipt of that first audit, it was sent to the Attorney General
for further legal investigation?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, the first audit the Leader
of the Second Opposition is referring to is the Winnipeg Ramada Renaissance
Hotel on north
Simultaneously, we were having a legal
opinion in terms of many of the aspects around this particular project from the
legal firm of Taylor, McCaffrey. One Mr.
D'Arcy McCaffrey and others in that firm were doing a legal opinion. We waited for the conclusion of not only the
accounting and auditor's report but also the legal opinion before deciding to
forward all five copies of the audits along with the pertinent information to
the Attorney General's department.
I do want to remind the Leader of the
Second Opposition, I think she is fully aware that since the end of December of
1992, the funds in the Ramada Renaissance, the funds in The Pas and the funds
in south
I agree with her. I agree with her comments about the problems
around this fund, and we can say, should we have acted sooner or when should we
have acted. We have accepted that as
fair criticism, unlike the kind of criticism and politicization we see from the
NDP.
We accept the timing issue, Mr. Speaker,
but we have addressed it, and we are the first province to be addressing it. It
is interesting to see the reaction now coming from provinces across
Funding
Freeze
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, while it is clear that the funds were frozen in one particular project,
because of the audit completed February 4 and because of the minister's
concerns even prior to the completion of that audit, can the minister tell the
House today why the other funds' assets have not been frozen in the same way?
* (1400)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, again, as the Leader of the
Second Opposition, I believe, knows, we did not have the authority to freeze
funds. The three funds in question were frozen at our request to the federal
government.
We did not have any reason to make that
request, and, certainly, there is nothing preventing the federal government, if
they saw a reason to implement it, from imposing it at any given point in
time. So at stages during the audits,
there was no reason to make a request as it relates to other funds.
Most of the funds that we have before us,
some are specific projects that are now completed. What we are dealing with in many cases we are
learning from unfortunate situations after the fact, but what we can learn from
this is an improvement around the program in its entirety.
That is why we will not go back into the
program unless integrity and reasonable rules are built around it. At this point in time, as the Leader of the
second opposition party knows, we are out of the Immigrant Investor Program.
Ramada
Renaissance Project Ownership Transfer
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Quite
frankly, in my opinion, the best thing to do with the entire program would be
to abolish it and stop selling visas to enter
Mr. Speaker, the province has frozen funds
for the Ramada Renaissance project, but the audit says there is not enough
money to complete this project, contrary to the guidelines, and that has been
admitted, but Lakeview, contrary to these guidelines, as well, signed a deal
with the North Portage Development Corporation which says that if the project
cannot be completed, ownership will be transferred to the North Portage
Development Corporation.
What effect does the freezing of the funds
have on this arrangement?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, that was one of the
deficiencies found by the auditors, that if the project was started and
defaulted on, there was a provision with
At this particular point in time, nothing
has happened to the funds that are on deposit.
We have made a recommendation to the federal government to go to the
courts and to get somebody appointed on behalf of the investors, most of whom
live outside of
That individual then, in consultation with
investors, can start making decisions around the disposition of the remaining
funds, the whole issue of the hotels, the whole issue of their visas because
they all have been issued, or the majority of them have been issued visas to
So we have made what we think is a very
reasonable recommendation to deal with this situation. So far, it has not been accepted by the
federal government. They have suggested,
Mr. Speaker, utilizing the trust company, RM Trust, as a mediator in this
situation. We disagree with that because
we think RM Trust was a part of the whole process, and they do not bring the
independence that would be brought to the issue by court‑appointed
individuals on behalf of the investors.
Natural
Resources Support
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, there has been ongoing concern
and now growing evidence that this government is paving the way for the
I have a memo from the director of Policy
Co‑ordination branch in the Department of Natural Resources where he
writes: The Manitoba Natural Resources supports the Pembina Valley Water Co‑op's
proposal conceptually, based on the information provided in the EIS in the
addendum and based on our familiarity with the proposal through our past
involvement in various aspects of the proposal during the planning project
stages.
I would ask the Minister of Natural
Resources why this official in his department is giving this kind of support
before the environmental impact assessment.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the
Department of Natural Resources and the federal agency referred to as PFRA, the
prairie farm rehabilitation organization agency, are the two main organizations
responsible with the mandate for management of
Both of these agencies have been actively
involved in pursuing the resolution to the chronic water shortages of that
particular region of the province known as the
It is not surprising to me therefore that
officials within the department have assisted the Pembina Water Co‑op in
bringing this proposal forward which is now before the provincial Clean
Environment Commission for consideration.
Ms.Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, for the same minister: Why is the support not made conditional on
dealing with the environmental concerns, some of which are raised in the same memo? Why is this support not made conditional on
dealing with these environmental concerns?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, as you would expect on a
proposal of this kind, all kinds of issues are raised. Professional people are doing their jobs.
Here is a listing of the kinds of memos
that people from the Department of Environment, my department, Fisheries,
Oceans and Fisheries, have raised with respect to this issue. All are being looked at and addressed. If she reads the memo further, the comment is
also made that in the opinion of some of the officials of the department, these
issues can be mitigated or their seeking further advice from the Department of
Environment will be dealt with in a particular way.
But that is all neither here nor
there. The issue is, these are the kinds
of things, these are the kinds of testimonies that will be sought by the Clean
Environment Commission upon which a decision and recommendation will be made to
government.
Mr. Speaker, let me make it very
clear. These are department officials
doing their job. The government of
Ms.Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, why is it that our Department of
Natural Resources is giving unqualified support based on documents that now
four other federal agencies are not satisfied with?
Why is it that our federal agencies are
not satisfied with the information which has been said to be inadequate, and
our Department of Natural Resources is accepting it?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member really
cannot have it both ways. She quotes
from the same document where the very responsible departmental official points
out certain concerns, points out matters that have to be addressed.
That is hardly unqualified support, Mr.
Speaker. What it is, is a departmental official
doing his business with respect to a particular proponent's proposal before the
Clean Environment Commission.
Agricultural
Research Centre
Location‑Northern
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (
We saw it with decentralization and we saw
it with lack of support for the
We have long said that there should be
more research into agriculture, but I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture
why the research centre and all the satellite facilities are in the southern
part of the province. Why did he not
push to have research in northern areas such as
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, we
believe very strongly in research, and I am very pleased to see that the
agricultural industry is putting forth money to help with a research centre
with a main site and four satellite sites across the province. That is five locations.
I want to tell the member that the
committee that went through the process of determining where these sites would
be analyzed, I believe, a total of 11 different locations in the province. There was broad analysis where those sites
should be.
The industry, in terms of producers, the
processing industry, is putting money into the research centre along with the
federal and provincial governments to be sure that we research the proper
topics to increase the diversification of agriculture in the
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, we all believe that there has to
be more research done, but we believe that there has to be research across the
province and support for agriculture across the province.
How can he tell us that his government can
fund the centre for $2.7 million over 10 years but has no funds in this year's
agricultural budget to support the horticultural position in northern
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the funds from
* (1410)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, again, we are not seeing support
for northern
How can this government say they are
committed? They say they are committed
to support for research, but how can they say they are supporting farmers when
they will not lobby to have grain shipped through the
Why are they only interested in southern
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, that member should be ashamed of
some of the falsehoods she puts on the record today.
In terms of lobbying for Churchill, no
government has worked harder for Churchill than this government right here and
this Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger).
The Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism‑‑
An Honourable Member: No government has failed more miserably
either.
Mr. Findlay: There is a member from the North who does not
care about what is being done for Churchill.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Industry,
Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) and myself signed the initial agreement on
the
Mr. Speaker: Prior to recognizing the honourable member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), I would like to ask the honourable Minister of
Agriculture‑‑because in your response the honourable member has
said the honourable member for
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, if I erred in using the word,
there is no question she put some factual inaccuracies on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I have asked you to withdraw the remark
"falsehoods."
Order, please. The honourable minister is having trouble
hearing. I have asked the honourable
Minister of Agriculture to withdraw the remark "falsehoods."
Mr. Findlay: I withdraw that word, Mr. Speaker, but the
intent of what I said is there.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Minister
of Agriculture. [interjection] What did I miss?
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, the minister, after he supposedly withdrew the remark, said
that the intent of his remarks remain.
That is not in keeping with our rules or
traditions. If the minister is going to
withdraw, let him withdraw without any qualification. That is only fair and that is the way we proceed
in this House.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I did not hear the remarks of the honourable
Minister of Agriculture. Unless the
honourable minister would like to withdraw it again, otherwise I will take this
matter under advisement and peruse Hansard to see if it is on the record.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw the use of the word‑‑
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable
minister. That does clear up the matter.
Distance
Education
Telecommunications
System
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Estimates in
Education, we had a lengthy discussion about the use of data transmission and
distance education and the way in which we link up the department and
schools. I notice that the Minister of
Education has set up a Task Force on Distance Education, that she received an interim
report in November, and that she has the final report in her hands.
We have now been informed by school
divisions that they are having to negotiate separately with MTS at considerable
cost per school division to establish these connections, and there has been no
attempt on the part of the department to co‑ordinate these negotiations
and hopefully negotiate a lower cost on behalf of all of the schools.
I would like to ask the minister, at a time
when money is so tight, why they have not been more active.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, the report on the Distance Education Task Force is being released to
the field for comment. It is also being
analyzed by government.
There are, however, some school divisions
which have wished to go ahead and enter into pilot projects or enter into
various distance education programs.
They have been in touch with the Department of Education and Training,
and we attempt to provide assistance where possible. However, in terms of the development of a
policy, our government is still reviewing it based on the task force report.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to have a policy
about the use of the system. It is another
thing to co‑ordinate the establishment of the system. The member responsible for telephones sits
some four seats down.
Is it not possible to establish a co‑ordination
of this rate setting? It is costing
divisions as much as $5,000 a month and up to $150,000 to hook up. It seems like a tremendous waste of money.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again, in the Task Force Report
on Distance Education, we reviewed a number of matters including technology,
various types of technology, which technology across the province was the most
applicable in various areas.
We recognize some technology will not work
in some parts of the province, so we have not established a policy yet. We are looking at the detailed information
which has been provided to us, as are school divisions across this province, to
develop a policy.
Distance
Education
Telecommunications
System
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about a
specific technology. We are talking
about the carrier. There is a
significant difference.
Maybe I could ask the minister responsible
for telephones because the school divisions tell us that MTS will not negotiate
with a number of school divisions together but wants to go school by school.
Can the minister tell us why MTS is
following this policy?
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister responsible for the administration of The
Kidney
Dialysis Services
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Health.
Mr. Speaker, government financial
restraint and cutbacks at the
Now patients dependent on the kidney
dialysis unit are being told that because of budget restraints, the level of
service is being capped and that if an additional new patient or patients
arrive, some of the existing patients will be asked to relocate to another
dialysis unit outside of the Westman region, causing considerable financial and
emotional hardship.
My question is: Will the minister look into this matter and
ensure that
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate my honourable friend's question, even though some of the preamble is
laced with inaccuracies.
Mr. Speaker, there has not been‑‑well,
I will back away and I will qualify the statement I am about to make. The investment by this government into
dialysis in the last five years has been significantly greater than any
previous five years of government, since dialysis became a program funded within
our hospital system. It has included
significant expansion at most hospital locations. It has included new expansion at
But, Sir, for my honourable friend to make
statements that we are cutting back on the resource to dialysis in the
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. In his response the honourable Minister of
Health used the words "false statements," which is clearly
unparliamentary.
I would ask the honourable minister to
withdraw that remark. "False statements" is clearly unparliamentary.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, not being learned of the rules,
you might perchance guide me, Sir, in how I can point out an inaccuracy that an
honourable friend puts‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Beauchesne's 489 clearly states: It is ruled unparliamentary to use the words
"false statements." I would
ask the honourable Minister of Health to withdraw said remark.
Mr. Orchard: I will withdraw that remark, Sir.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable Minister
of Health.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable Minister of
Health will look in Hansard, he will see that I used the word,
"capping" the level of services.
I did not say cut back the level of service of dialysis. I said the capping of dialysis services,
which is causing the problem, and people in Westman are legitimately concerned,
living in many of the constituencies that honourable members across‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: My question is, does the minister appreciate
the hardship that this permanent or temporary location that is being proposed
will cause the existing patients at BGH who usually spend between three and a
half and four hours, three times a week, to be able to simply stay alive? How can you expect these people to relocate
without causing considerable emotional and financial pain due to the capping of
the service‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my honourable
friend corrected an inaccurate statement in his first preamble, but placed an
inaccurate statement in his second preamble.
Mr. Speaker, there has been more expansion
of capacity‑‑
* (1420)
Point of
Order
Mr. Leonard Evans: The minister says he is pleased that I
corrected an inaccuracy that I mentioned in the first one with regard to the
dialysis service. I want to make it
clear and ask the minister to look at the record. I said capping‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend from
Brandon East's first inaccuracy was alleging cutbacks in dialysis. His second inaccuracy is alleging capping of
services in dialysis.
Both statements are inaccurate. If one were an outside observer, they might
say they were false, but an outside observer, of course, does not have
privilege in this House.
Point of
Order
Mr. Steve Ashton
(Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, our
rules are quite clear. I am surprised that
the member opposite, who has been in this House for a considerable period of
time, is not aware that not only can one not use unparliamentary language, one
cannot phrase other statements that would impute unparliamentary language.
I think the intent was very obvious on the
part of the member. I would ask him to
withdraw those statements.
Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised, Beauchesne's
490: " . . . it has been ruled
parliamentary to use the following expressions: . . . False."
* * *
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I want to simply remind my
honourable friend from Brandon East that the reason why dialysis is in
That may have coincided with the time that
my honourable friend was in the underground bunker at
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, the ladies and gentlemen and the
doctors and the health givers who are concerned about a legitimate problem will
be very disconcerted about the garbage of a reply that we are getting from the
Minister of Health‑‑garbage, total garbage. Let us get some answers‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please. The honourable member for Brandon East, with
your question now, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, does the minister appreciate
that many of the kidney patients are elderly, on fixed incomes, and cannot
afford the relocation costs, and they believe that this service is being capped
and so do the doctors and so do the health givers?
Therefore, is the government prepared to
assist them in some way in their relocation, if this is being required? Certainly, far better, Mr. Speaker‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend made the statement
in his preamble that people, including doctors and patients, believe that the
service is being capped.
They would maybe believe that, although it
is not accurate, but they would have a greater tendency to believe that after
listening to the incorrect, inaccurate and improper information my honourable
friend from Brandon East brings to this House periodically.
U.N.
Convention on Children's Rights
Government
Strategy
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, this evening, a vigil will be
held here on the grounds of the Legislature to mark International Children's
Day and to demonstrate a commitment to the rights of children, especially a
concern for the increasing numbers of children who are neglected or abused. Members on this side of the House have asked
the government numerous questions in the past regarding the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services what steps his government has taken toward implementing the goals of
that U.N. convention.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, our department deals in considerable detail with the children of
As well, we devote considerable time and
effort and resources to the Child and Family Services system where, again, we
have seen dramatic increases in the amount of funding that we give to those
agencies. Within those agencies, we have
brought in a number of reforms such as the Child Advocate, the service
information system, the high‑risk estimation system which is now being
implemented by Child and Family Services agencies across
I can tell you from a recent meeting I had
with the board chairs and the executive directors, they are very positive about
these reforms that are being brought into place.
Child
Poverty Rate
Reduction
Strategy
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): I would like to ask the Minister of Family
Services, given the fact that the Premier (Mr. Filmon) said in December 1991‑‑and
he promised to work co‑operatively on any program designed to eradicate
poverty with respect to the children of our province, what programs has this
minister and his government implemented or even designed or even proposed to
reduce the appalling level of child poverty in
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Besides
addressing the provincial rates on an annual basis, we moved to create an exemption
for the children's trust funds that exist within this particular program. We have given additional assistance for
school supplies. We have passed on the
goods and services tax as exempted income.
We have increased the liquid asset exemption levels. We have changed the head of household
policy. We have modified the wheelchair
transportation for social reasons. We
have extended the health benefits to recipients who have the health card.
Currently, a number of departments of this
government are in consultation with the federal government‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister
of Family Services to explain to Manitobans how the policies of his government
he has implemented, including cuts of social assistance rates, cuts to tax
credits, cuts to health care for welfare recipients, increases in child care
fees, cuts to foster parents, user fees for essential medical supplies and the
extension‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Mr. Martindale: . . . how these policies can be reconciled
with a spoken commitment to eradicate child poverty and fulfill the goals of
the U.N. Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, this government realizes with
other governments across this country that we must have the deficit under
control if we are going to maintain social programs in health, in family
services and in education.
As a result of that, we have made some
changes. Even though the member talks
about cuts, the Department of Family Services has seen dramatic increases in
the budget line for every budget year for the last six budgets, and, at the
same time, of course, being able to keep down the level of taxation.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL
STATEMENTS
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): May I have leave for a nonpolitical statement?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed] Mr.
Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I rise today
and ask all members of this House to take a little time out of their hectic
schedules to pay tribute to one of our greatest resources‑‑children.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I call on the
Assembly to recognize an event that is taking place later today which places
the spotlight on the serious problem that is affecting too many children in our
cities, our towns, our villages and our local neighbourhoods. It is the problem dealing with violence
against children.
Sadly, innocent children are far too often
the victim of senseless abuse. I know we
all hope and pray that this form of sick violence is stopped one of these
days. As I said earlier, children are
one of our greatest resources. They
bring pleasure to our lives, and through their own form of influence change
people's lives for the better.
Children are our future teachers, our
police officers, our sports stars, and yes, even our future politicians. There will be a vigil outside the
As well, the gathering is designed to
bring this serious problem to the attention of more people. I call on this Assembly to salute the many
hardworking volunteers for their dedication toward combatting this problem, and
I also invite members from the House to join me in attending today's vigil at
5:30. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Burrows have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add to the
remarks of my colleague and say that I too will be attending the first annual
International Children's Day kids vigil on the grounds of the Legislative
Assembly.
I hope that many other honourable members
will join us to show our commitment and support for children and to let the
public know that we are in support of rights for children and that we are
opposed to anything which is harmful to children, particularly, abuse and
neglect of any kind. Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Committee
Changes
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, I would move, seconded by the honourable Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey),
that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House resolve itself into
a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable deputy
government House leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House‑‑
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, if I may, just before you put the
question, I would ask if you would canvass the House to see if there is a will
to waive private members' hour?
Mr. Speaker: Is there a will to waive private members'
hour?
Some Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No.
Leave is denied.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Education and Training; and the member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
EDUCATION
AND TRAINING
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon this section of
the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Education and Training.
When the committee last sat it had been
considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 35 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I have for tabling today a report on the Analysis of
Staffing Complement by Staff Category as was requested yesterday. I also have to table four copies of the
course Skills for Independent Living with its complete content of the Interim
Guide.
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, given that we are in
the administration section of this‑‑actually maybe the minister could
help me with the term too, am I talking about a branch here now of the
department?
I am interested in developments at the
School for the Deaf, and I am wondering if the minister could just bring me up
to date on what has occurred there in this last year, if there have been any
changes in program staffing, et cetera?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
At this time we are dealing with line (a) on Division Administration (1)
Salaries. If you will note on line (d),
* (1440)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are prepared to
answer that particular question at this point.
Just to clarify, the member was asking if this was a branch or a
division. The line 16.2(a) we are
looking at the administration of a division, the division of Program
Development and Support Services.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member has
asked some questions regarding the
The department and its position on
bilingual and bicultural education for the deaf and the hard‑of‑hearing
students, the Department of Education and Training fully supports bilingual and
bicultural education for deaf and hard‑of‑hearing students as an
important program option. This approach
is being developed and is provided at the
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the bicultural
program that the minister referenced, I think she indicated that it was being
offered at the School for the Deaf. Is
it offered in any of the integrated classrooms in other divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the bilingual and
bicultural education is primarily through the
Mr. Alcock: I should maybe try to define this a little
better, too. There is a range of
disability. Some children who are
considered deaf are in fact classified as hard of hearing and with augmentation
can function with some assists within the school. Others are deaf to the point of using sign
language of some sort. I can remember
the St. James program. How many children
who are using something other than an oral method of instruction are currently
in the school system and not at the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not have those
exact figures with us because we are not at that specific budget line. We could
estimate the numbers. It is a very broad
estimation across the province of approximately 25 to 50 young people.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, I appreciate that we are doing this a
bit out of order, although services to children who are classified as deaf and
not receiving services at the School for the Deaf would not necessarily be
tracked within that line. Would that be
correct? Where would those children
fall? In what part of the appropriation
should I be looking for more detail?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the
However, under the appropriation 16‑2(e),
which is our Child Care & Development Branch where we have our seven
consultants who operate in the rural area, we might have some further
information in that area.
Mr. Alcock: Perhaps then, not necessarily at this moment
or even if we get to that particular line today‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask you to just move a little bit
back from the mike? It is actually
giving us feedback right now.
Mr. Alcock: Is that better?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Yes.
Mr. Alcock: Oh, here I thought I was helping you.
Not for today's session necessarily, but I
would be interested in that number, roughly how many students. I would also be interested‑‑and
this may be something that can be answered now.
Those children who are identified as deaf and needing something other
than simple auditory augmentation that are being taught with a sign language
system‑‑are you still not hearing me?
An Honourable Member: They did the same thing to me last night,
Reg.
Mr. Alcock: No, I think the minister is actually trying
to provide useful information. I do not
have any sense that they are‑‑
An Honourable Member: I do not mean she is not doing that. I am talking about your information.
Mr. Alcock: Oh, okay.
Is this any good? Is that
better? Do you want to try this, No. 9? That is okay?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Yes.
Mr. Alcock: Do you want me to repeat all that or do you
understand? I just want to know, is ASL
the language of instruction? That is all
I want to know.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, at the School
for the Deaf, ASL, American Sign, is the language of instruction.
Mr. Alcock: What about these 25 to 50 children in the
other school divisions?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that ASL, as I have said, is
the language at the School for the Deaf, but within the other programs which
students are in, we have some difficulty knowing exactly which of the languages
is being used, because Signing Exact English may be the skills that the person
has who is available to assist that student within the classroom. So I understand outside of the MSD, there is
some mixture of ASL and Signing Exact English.
Mr. Alcock: Yes, it is my understanding that the St.
James program uses ASL. Are there other
examples where there is a clustering of this that allows the use of ASL?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that St. James is really the only
large cluster of students.
* (1450)
Mr. Alcock: The minister met some time ago with
representatives from the deaf community about a study of deaf education, and I
am wondering what the status is of that.
Mrs. Vodrey: I did have a meeting with some representatives
of the community and at that time they did ask about a review of deaf education
in our province. I can say now, and I
did say then, that I am in favour of a review because we are seeking to improve
continually the education for the deaf and the hard‑of‑hearing
students in
But I have said that as an alternative to
a total review, I have requested that the advisory board for education of the
deaf and the hard of hearing and the department jointly prioritize issues to be
examined. Then I will be able to
determine in consultation with this advisory board how these matters will be
reviewed and how the resulting recommendations will be able to be implemented.
Mr. Alcock: Has that committee been able to prioritize?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the first meeting of that
committee will be next Monday.
Mr. Alcock: Can the minister inform me as to who the
representatives of the Community Centre for the Deaf are? Who is representing the deaf community?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that the two representatives
from WCCD are Bruce Koskie and Dianne Mondor.
Mr. Alcock: Perfect.
I think you will get very, very solid feedback from them. Now, the minister mentioned that this was a
joint committee with the deaf and the hard of hearing. How are they defining the hard‑of‑hearing
community, or are we really talking about the oral education community?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, one of the issues
that was discussed was a broader representation on the board and that broader
representation to include what the committee had referred to as the hard of
hearing as well as the oral deaf. I
understand that there will be a representative at the Monday meeting who
represents what the community has determined is hard of hearing, and then one
of the issues that they will be looking at specifically Monday is to take an
active step in terms of a broader representation on the board. They will be looking, I am informed, at the
three areas: the hard of hearing, oral
deaf and also more representation from the deaf community.
Mr. Alcock: I do not need to take up the time of this
committee in the details of this issue.
I am sure the minister's staff, who have been well immersed in the
concerns of the profoundly deaf community over the use of ASL and the cultural
implications that has for their community, and their concern about an erosion
of the core of that community as we develop education methods that they
question the efficacy of‑‑although I am not certain that we should
be getting into that here.
I would like to know, the
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can tell the member
that it seems some of the reasons for what is now a fairly stable population
are really the issue of parental choice.
We certainly in the department have not taken a role either pro‑mainstreaming
or con‑mainstreaming in terms of working with families. In terms of the projected populations, it is
true in about '88‑89, there were 89 students, it went to 90; in '90‑91,
it was 88; '91‑92, 85; '92‑93, 82.
The projection for the next three years is 83 students. So there has been a relative stability over
the past‑‑well, it would be projected for five years.
Mr. Alcock: So there is nothing in the planning or sort
of forward‑looking policies of the department to reduce the size, reduce
the use, reduce the focusing on the School for the Deaf.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, no, there has been
nothing.
Mr. Alcock: I am pleased to hear that. Certainly, it is an area that arises. Every now and again I will get a phone call,
because I have a number of friends who are deaf, that a little panic goes
through the community about the potential closure of the school. I suspect they react to the rumours that come
out of the budget process as much as anybody else.
For the ASL community, the school is a
very important center. They use it not
just for the education of their children, but it forms a social function within
the community, too. They would be very
loathe to see it changed or closed or the program further decentralized.
On curriculum, I had a question about the
IB programs. How is the curriculum for
the IB programs established? Is that
something that the department does or are we borrowing a curriculum that has
been established outside of the province?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the International
Baccalaureate program is a program which was developed in
I am informed that there is somewhat of an
unevenness in the completion, because there are two possible ways to complete,
one being a diploma at the end of the program in which the students do an
extended essay. They also do three
courses at a higher level as well as our curriculum. Students may, however, obtain a certificate
in the International Baccalaureate program which requires somewhat less of a
commitment to the total course.
* (1500)
Mr. Alcock: The curriculum comes out of
Mrs. Vodrey: In
Our concern is that students complete the
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Yes, just a couple of questions to the
minister regarding the staff table that she gave us. I thank the minister for that
information. I note that yesterday the
minister talked about 15 management for 1992, and this table shows 14. Can the minister explain that
discrepancy? She indicated there was a
reduction of two, down to 13 from 15, and now it seems that it was only from 14
down to 13.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would have to check the record for having
given that number to the member, but, as I check the Estimates book for last
year, the number is 14 and that is the correct number.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, well, the minister clearly said there
were two co‑ordinators that were removed, and now it would show there was
only one. I mean, that was clear last
night. If that was just a mistake, that
is fine.
Mrs. Vodrey: The co‑ordinators are considered within
the Professional/Technical line, not within the Managerial line.
Mr. Plohman: That makes the information given even more
difficult for me in terms of accepting what the minister is saying. I asked that question under management, and
the minister said that there were two managers removed, those being co‑ordinators. Now she is saying that is not even the
relevant category.
Mrs. Vodrey: I would have to check the record, but there
were some questions asked in an area of clarification, and I asked the member
yesterday, was he referring to directors, was he referring to co‑ordinators? So what we have done today is provide the
detailed information that the member has asked.
We have provided him with the information in the Managerial line, in the
Professional/Technical line, in the Administrative Support line, and then
provided a column with total.
I am prepared to answer any questions he
might have regarding the information which we have put together for him today.
Mr. Plohman: I will certainly ask questions on this
information, and I appreciate having it, but I would assume when we ask the
minister questions and she gives definitive answers, which is on rare
occasions, that we have to assume that those are factual, not just something
that comes out of the air somewhere.
I asked distinctly yesterday about
managerial positions and how many were reduced and the minister said two from
15 to 13, and we asked about Professional/Technical and Administrative Support,
and that is where we got into larger numbers, and that is why the minister said
I should have to come back the next day and give us the information. So it was clear that the information that was
asked for and received yesterday was obviously incorrect information.
Insofar as the Professional/Technical and
Administrative Support‑‑no, first of all in the management; I will
just finish with that. If we see this
year 13 managers for 261 staff, the ratio is 1 to 20, and last year there would
have been 14 for 343 staff, so the ratio would have been 1 to 24.5. Under that scenario, the minister is becoming
more manager‑heavy and she has more managers per staff than she had
previously. It is a significant
increase, 4.5 on 20 which is close to 25 percent increase in terms of the
percentage of managers per staff or staff per managers. Why is that?
Can the minister give us any indication why she is making the department
even more management top‑heavy?
Mrs. Vodrey: In terms of some of the reorganization that
we are doing within the Department of Education, we are providing much more of
a co‑ordination function, and so the people who hold the managerial roles
are still looking at working with a client base of approximately 200,000
students. So we are still providing that
type of function which may fall into the Managerial category.
The member looks at some of the reductions
in the Department of Education. Yes,
there was the decentralization of the clinicians to the employment of the home
school divisions. Those clinicians did
fall within the function of one manager.
That one manager does retain a very large role throughout the province,
particularly in the area of special needs young people.
* (1510)
Mr. Plohman: The minister's answer is not consistent with
a desire to put priorities with services.
It would seem to me that, when she made the decision to eliminate the
clinicians, these were Professional/Technical people who provided direct
service to children.
She is now rationalizing having managers
service 200,000 students, and therefore it was necessary to keep as many as she
has done. That does not make sense,
because the managers do not provide direct service to children. The Professional/Technical people did and do,
to the extent that they are left. I
cannot understand the rationale behind that kind of thinking.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Deputy Chair, as I explained to the
member in the last answer, we do still perform a co‑ordination function
within the province. In terms of the
direct service, direct service, for instance, by clinicians, was provided by
the clinicians. That direct service is
now being provided by clinicians who are within the employment of their home
school division where they are establishing their own employee‑employer
relationships.
The department's role, however, is to
continue to offer a support function. We
have gone over several times the kind of support function which the department
is willing to, and is still active in, one being the certification of those
clinicians.
(Mrs. Shirley Render, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
In terms of the overall management
function, as I said, we do provide for co‑ordination. Our role is to assist in the area of planning
and, where appropriate, prioritization.
We have to develop strong consultative links with the field, and that is
the way that the Department of Education and Training is looking now to provide
its leadership role in
Mr. Plohman: Would it not make more sense to provide
support services for those clinicians who were laid off and deleted from this
department? The minister likes to use
the term "decentralized," when, in fact, she has offloaded them onto
local school divisions with grants that are not sufficient to meet their total
cost.
In any event, they are working for an independent
employer, an employer not of government.
Therefore, the direct management is not necessary for those people who
are no longer in the department. If they
need support services, they need it from Professional/Technical people, to give
support to those Professional/Technical people in the field or employed by the
divisions. It does not seem to be
necessary to maintain the full complement of management which the minister has
virtually done here.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member speaks about providing support to
the clinicians in the field and to the school divisions. I have explained to him that the department
is actively supporting the school divisions with their assistance in
recruitment and selection process and through the involvement of senior consultants
in speech and language and psychology from the Child Care & Development
Branch, so they can assist in the area of recruitment. I have also said, we will also provide the
supervisory function that is required for clinicians to become certified within
the
In addition and in response to the school
divisions' requests, the Child Care & Development Branch is arranging for
the transfer of the diagnostic and treatment materials which were used by those
clinicians to the department, from the department to school divisions and to
districts employing clinicians. So there
is a number of functions which are being undertaken. The member has asked about supervision and
has asked about support, and I have told him that is still being provided.
Mr. Plohman: Some of the comments made by the minister
seem somewhat absurd in trying to explain this.
In terms of the recruitment process, I would think that the Human
Resource section would be providing that support. That is not something that would come under
this section, as a Human Resource personnel department of government.
As well, the minister talks about
transferring materials to the school divisions from the Diagnostic Centre. Is she saying that she needs these managers
to transfer those materials?
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, in the area of who provides
support and who assists in the area of recruitment, Human Services is involved
in that area. However, the role of the
manager from the Child Care & Development Branch area is to provide information
regarding the specialization and the special skills required regarding these
clinicians, so there still is a professional input from the person who is being
employed as a clinician from their own professional background.
The member is speaking about the issue of
managers and, as I have said, we are looking at a reorganization within the
PDSS area and we have been speaking about that for some time. When we have completed our consultations‑‑and
I have explained that reorganization will be completed with consultations with
the department itself and also with the field.
When we complete that reorganization and that restructuring process,
then we certainly will be looking at the issue that the member for Dauphin has
been raising and discussing.
Mr. Plohman: I guess I have to ask the minister if it is
her policy to maintain management while cutting services to children?
Mrs. Vodrey: When the member speaks about cutting services
to children, I am not sure exactly what he might be referring to. He has spoken
over some time about clinicians, and I have been able to tell him over
discussion over several time periods that the clinicians will be looking at
employment, not through the Department of Education and Training, but
employment through home school divisions.
I have already explained the model, that
there are 19 school divisions currently operating in that way. We have spoken about the grant available to
the home school divisions for the hiring of clinicians. We have also spoken about supplementary support
available for school divisions as they hire their school clinicians, so there
certainly is still support.
In the area of special needs support,
also, I would remind the member that we have increased quite significantly our
special needs funding over the past few years in the Department of
Education. We have this year, through
our funding formula, recognized as has never been recognized before, funding
support for emotionally behaviourally disordered young people and also for hard‑of‑hearing
young people. So there has been, on a
number of fronts, support offered in the area of special needs.
The member does not seem to have grasped
the picture.
Mr. Plohman: Under one category, the minister has provided
additional funding for severely handicapped children, Level II and III, with
low incidence, high cost. On the other
hand, she has cut clinicians that supported all the kids with special needs,
with no guarantee when that was done that these services would be maintained. The minister has admitted that she has no way
of enforcing that these would be provided by the various school divisions if
they choose not to take advantage of the support that is there from government,
support which I have said several times is not adequate to meet the total cost.
We know that. School divisions have told us that, whether
the minister admits it or not, that $45,000 is not sufficient.
The minister cannot have it both ways with
this. If she says she has decentralized
these clinicians, are they then the responsibility of the local school
boards? The minister cannot use that as
a rationale for retaining almost all of her managers, while these are now
within the jurisdiction of the school divisions. That is what we have been arguing with her,
that she has retained the managers and done so at the expense of direct
services to children, personnel who are providing direct services to children.
That argument is very powerfully
demonstrated in the data that has been given to us. It will be encouraging, I guess, in this process
if the minister would simply admit that is the case at the present time, and
that she will undertake to deal with that distortion in the future, either by
restoring services, staff that would provide direct services to children or by
reducing management. Our preference
would, of course, provide the services to children.
If she is going to take away those staff,
then surely she has to also remove a proportionate number of management from
the section.
* (1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: We certainly support direct service to
children and support that in a number of ways.
First of all, in the area of clinicians‑‑and I have
explained this and perhaps the member when we get to the funding formula will
also have a concrete way to look at the support which is offered.
The grant to support clinicians has been
increased. In addition, we have spoken
over the course of the Estimates process about supplementary funding available
through the funding formula to school divisions that would need further
assistance in the hiring of their clinicians, and that support which comes
through supplementary funding would assist school divisions in certainly a
number of ways.
So I have made it clear that, as
individual school divisions hire their clinicians, they will receive support
through the grant available for the hiring of clinicians; in addition, where
required, they would receive support through the supplementary category of the
school funding formula. I believe that
certainly answers the question of the financial commitment.
In addition, when the clinicians were in
the direct employ of the Department of Education and Training, there were 52
positions. Now that school divisions
will employ clinicians directly, the number of positions available, calculated
by way of the formula, is 59.5. That is
more.
So it is certainly evident that funding
the services to special needs children through clinicians and funding them
through the school funding formula should, in fact, lead to better service for
special needs children. In terms of the
local divisions, I would also be very surprised if divisions did not access the
services of clinicians because of the supports available to them.
Mr. Plohman: The minister may be correct that most
divisions feel incumbent not to reduce services, and therefore will do
everything possible to attempt to hire clinicians. I am not saying they would not think that is
a priority, but she should not have difficulty understanding why they would not
when she has cut their funding by 2 percent this year and then placed this
greater burden on them to also find additional monies locally.
If she is surprised about it, I think she
should get over that surprise immediately because there are very good reasons
why they would not be able to offer the services that they would deem to be
desirable.
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: Just let me tell the member that special
needs funding went up 6 percent this year in school funding.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mrs. Render): The minister does not
have a point of order. It is a dispute
over facts.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: It is a ridiculous point on the minister's
part because it does not even deal with the issue. The ridiculous point is this, that, in fact, we
are not talking about the same thing, clinician services. The special needs that I referred to earlier
was the severely disabled students, whether it be the Level II and III
students, where there have been increases in funding.
Insofar as the clinicians are concerned,
there is a substantial decrease in this line in funding. The grants on the other side may end up
adding up to as much as the decrease here, but there is the decrease in this
line. If the minister can show that the
money being provided for clinicians in another line is greater than the
decrease here, then she will have a point to make about that.
I want to say, though, that I would not
keep talking about enhanced grants for clinicians because that happened last
year, and so I do not know how many years the minister would keep talking about
enhanced grants. The grants were not
enhanced this year, even while this major step of removing them and
transferring them over to school divisions was taking place.
I think it is clear the minister would
have to‑‑whether she is supplying an adequate amount of support for
special needs kids, and we would argue that she is not. She has also retained an overabundance of
managers while she has reduced staff who provided direct service to
students. That is the point I am making
at the present time.
I note also on this table, though, that
the minister has made cuts, and, as a result, that she has more Administrative
Support SYs than she had under the 1992‑93 Estimates. We have all these Professional/Technical
people being eliminated, and yet we have maintained the managers and we have
maintained all of the administrative supports.
As a matter of fact, the number is higher
in absolute terms; and, in percentage terms, it is much greater. How can the minister explain that?
Mrs. Vodrey: First of all, I just have to make a comment
around the issue of the funding. The
member has said, will I be able to show that in fact the funding adds up to the
same on behalf of clinicians and special needs young people?
I am certainly informed that, when we add
in the supplementary funding available to school divisions as well as the
budget line that we have been discussing, yes, we will be at what would
certainly be seen as a break‑even point even at this time.
So I think that it is very important for
the member to not continue to say that somehow there are not the same kinds of
support available within school divisions because, in fact, I have explained
that there is support from two areas:
one through the funding formula; another through the area of
supplementary funding.
In terms of the staffing within the
Department of Education and Training, we do look at the programs that are being
offered, particularly in this area, which is the Program Development and
Support Services area. We also look at
the priorities in this area, and we do not make a sweeping gesture in terms of
a formula. We do not make reductions in
terms of formula, which the member is trying to get at.
There must be some way‑‑he has
given us some ratios and so on during the discussion in the afternoon. He seems to feel that, based on ratios,
decisions should be made. As I have
explained to him, and as I have been explaining to him, there has been a
careful look at the issue of programming which is being done and also
priorities.
We have wanted to look at minimizing the
impact on service within any of the programs which we offer in the Department
of Education and Training. As we discuss
more of the services, then the member may find that this becomes more clear to
him than simply a mathematical formula.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
* (1530)
Mr. Plohman: I am not saying that she should use ratios,
but I am saying the ratios reflect what she has done. She has not even considered the fact that, as
a result of her decision, she has far more Administrative Support to
Professional/Technical people, secretarial support and so on that are needed,
than previously, before these massive cuts were undertaken in this branch. I am asking the minister how she can justify
having so many more support staff when she has so many fewer professional staff
providing direct service to kids.
Mrs. Vodrey: Again, the member has been using ratios as an
attempt to try and look at how things should look in his mind, and I have said
that we did not make those decisions based on that ratio formula. Instead, we looked at issues such as program
and priorities.
I have also explained, and I can go over
it again, that we are looking at restructuring in this K to 12 area. We are looking at reorganizing in the K to 12
area, and I have told him, even this afternoon, that during this restructuring
and during this reorganization we will be most certainly looking at the
complement of staff, the functions of staff, the priorities of staffing. So, as he asks us to review exactly the work
of staff, yes, we will be doing that as we do the restructuring and the
reorganization.
Mr. Plohman: The point is, the minister has made some
hasty cuts here without considering the impact on children at all. She keeps saying that that is her primary
consideration, services for children, but that is not reflected in the staffing
table that we see before us. In fact, it
goes quite the opposite way. She has maintained,
and enhanced, actually, Administrative Support by two and a quarter staff while
cutting 77 Professional/Technical staff and reducing management by only
one. Overall, this has distorted the
ratios that were there historically with regard to professional staff,
administrative support and management.
As a matter of fact, the ratio for
Administrative Support has gone from one to four, to one to three. That is a significant change, and I want to
ask the minister how she can rationalize that on the basis of enhancing service
to children.
Mrs. Vodrey: The member knows very well, I believe he
should know, that school divisions are now going to be the employers and are
going to be responsible for that direct service, where clinicians, for
instance, were previously the employees of the Department of Education and
Training. School divisions are now
responsible for that direct service.
I have explained to the member that we are
in the process of a restructuring and a reorganization, and it is a process.
Through that process, there has been a process of consultation. The
consultation has been with our direct staff and also with school
divisions. We are in the middle of that
consultation. When the consultation is complete, then we will be able to look
at making some of these changes.
As I have said, as a result of the
consultation, managerial positions are being reviewed, but at the moment, they
still have a function within the Department of Education and Training in
relation to the field.
The member's difficulty is that he is
looking only at numbers, and we are looking at total programs and initiatives.
The member seems to be having a lot of difficulty putting together the picture
of the programs and the initiatives that the Department of Education and Training
is responsible for, and it is looking at providing support to the field, as he
focuses only on a specific number.
Mr. Plohman: Since the service to children was supposed to
be the governing criteria, why did the minister go the opposite way with these
cuts?
First of all, she has said today already
that it was not to save money, because the staff is claiming and the minister
is claiming that there are actually more total dollars in the area of
clinicians overall. Through the grant
system, there is actually money when you consider the grants for clinicians as
well as direct dollars for programs.
When the minister is finished consulting
in the middle, my point is she is saying that the‑‑[interjection]
Well, I would like the minister to be able to hear. There is no sense me rambling on if the
minister is not listening.
The point is the minister is saying that
total services for special needs, including clinicians grants as well as
programming grants is more than was previously available in this particular
area before the offloading and the cuts in the clinicians.
So if it was not done to save money, and
it was done for the opposite priority that the minister says was the governing
criteria, which was, of course, that services to children would be protected as
the major criteria here, then why did the minister do it at all, if it was not
just to show the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) that she had reduced staff
and, therefore, SYs were down and the government could say to the public, we
have reduced civil service positions. Is
that not what was really behind these cuts?
It does not make any sense any other way.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I think if the
member reviews the comments I have made, he will find that I said there has
been an increase in the special needs funding, but that in terms of the funds
to support clinicians, we are now, through the two methods, at approximately a
break‑even point. So there have
been two areas I have discussed in terms of where the funding lies. We have again spoken‑‑[interjection]
The member seems to want me to hear him,
but then he seems to be talking while I am trying to give him an answer, so let
me repeat the answer again.
There has been increased funding in the
area of special needs, approximately 6 percent, and we are at the moment at
approximately a break‑even point in the area of funding for clinician
services through the school funding formula for clinicians and also through the
supplementary funding.
* (1540)
If the member would like to speak about
actually services to children, then we might want to take a little bit of time
to talk about the employment of clinicians by the local school division, that
employment by the jurisdiction closest to the student. In the 19 school divisions that currently
operate that way, obviously that has been a way in which they have felt that
they have been able to deliver service in a way that is closest to the place
where the student lives.
As the member knows, when I worked as a
school clinician, that was a model that I worked in. I worked in a model where I was not employed
by the province. I was, instead,
employed by a school division and was able to work directly with the personnel
who had the direct responsibility for the educational instruction and programs
for students.
Mr. Plohman: The minister just made my point when she said
that there is a break‑even on clinicians and no money saved by this
move. So the minister was not doing it
for the purposes of saving money, she is now saying. If you look at the other criterion, services
to children, there was only one way the minister could ensure that the services
would be at least as good as they were the prior year or even better: that would be to ensure that those clinicians
were maintained in the department.
She has no way of knowing for sure whether
that service is going to be maintained at its previous level. There is every indication that it will not
simply because school boards are in a pinch as a result of this government's
failure to provide adequate funding for the education of children in this
province through the public school system.
Therefore, some will, as a matter of fact, have difficulty rehiring all
of these clinicians.
So it was not to enhance services to
children that this was done; it was not to save money. So what was it for? What was the purpose? Why did the minister make this move?
You know, she talks about consultation
now. She is going to go and consult and
then determine whether she has got too many managers. I thought this was something that was rather
internal to the department. They are
going to determine how many managers they need and how many Administrative
Support staff they need. The minister is going to go and consult on that.
Why did she not consult then on the
Professional/Technical people before she dumped them onto school division? There was no consultation there. It was a last‑minute decision. There was no notice given to school
boards. There is no consistency at all
in this minister's approach. She is all
over the map.
Mrs. Vodrey: Let us look historically then, first of all,
to say that the department has provided leadership during the last two decades
to ensure that clinician services were developed in rural areas in this province,
in rural divisions and districts, and in isolated areas of the province.
I can tell the member that, when I arrived
in the
So there has been, from a historical point
of view, an effort by the department to make sure that these clinician services
have been developed. We have talked
about the financial end, and then in my last answer I spoke again about
clinician services being offered where clinicians are employed by the local
school division. They then work very
close to their employing authority, and they work very closely with the people
who are making decisions on behalf of children.
I also explained to the member that was a
model that I have some experience with in terms of being able to work directly
with those people within school divisions who are making decisions on behalf of
children and, as a clinician, to have the opportunity to work directly with
those people making those decisions.
That answer was given when we were speaking about how decisions affect
children and how we look at the impact of decisions directly on children. I think that answers the first part of his
question.
The second part of his question regarded
the actual setup of the Department of Education and Training, particularly in
the Professional Development and Support Services area. In this area, I have been explaining all
afternoon, and several times before that, that we are looking to provide the
service in the most efficient way, to make sure that the role of Manitoba
Education and Training is well understood throughout the province.
The member seems to have some difficulty
with the issue of consultation. Even
though I have explained that the issue of consultation relates, No. 1,
internally with our own staff so that there is a full understanding, a strong
corporate picture. Much earlier in the Estimates, I discussed the fact that one
of the important goals of the restructuring and the reorganization is that,
when a representative of our department is out within the school divisions,
they will be able to speak for more than just their single area or discipline
and that they will not have to go through the whole process of saying: well, that is not the area that I work in, I
cannot tell you anything about that; but instead to assist in the development
of a much stronger corporate picture.
So we are going through a process of
consultation. One is internal. One is with the field so that the role that
Manitoba Education and Training has developed is, in fact, well
understood. We will be completing that
reorganization, and we believe that it will make us a very efficient organization.
As I said, we are working very closely
with divisions. We are working closely
with divisions in the transfer of responsibility of clinicians. We have been very supportive to school
divisions, and we expect to continue to operate in that way.
Mr. Plohman: Let the minister not leave on the record that
I have any problem with consultation. I
have consistently advocated consultation on the part of the minister before she
makes some of the fundamental decisions that have been made. Obviously, this
concept of consultation applies to the minister's thinking in certain instances
where it is convenient; and, in other instances where it is not, she
conveniently forgets to mention that it should have been done.
In the case of clinicians, in her
brilliant wisdom, the minister determined for school boards that they should
want to employ clinicians locally. She
never heard from them that they wanted this and they were clamouring at her
door for it. She just decided that they
should employ them locally, that it is good for them, and it is good for the
clinicians and everybody should want this.
That is not the kind of heavy‑handed, top‑down decision
making that reflects consultation. There
does not seem to be any element of consultation in that kind of approach, and
there is no advanced planning in that kind of approach either.
If the minister had said we are looking at
doing this, we are going to provide sufficient incentive to school boards to
ensure that it will not cost additional dollars for them to hire these
clinicians and that we would like to see a date one year hence, perhaps the
fall of '94 for this to take place, then, of course, it would have made some
sense, and the minister could have rationalized what she was doing in terms of
consultation and so on. But this was
dumped on the school boards with about two weeks notice prior to their having
to finalize their budgets.
So the minister cannot try and explain
away history here, that somehow there was a process of consultation‑‑there
was not‑‑and secondly, that this was what was wanted‑‑it
was not‑‑and that she was keeping services to children as the
primary consideration, because it was not the case.
So she is wrong on all of those
points. She is misleading, whether
deliberately or not. The point is I
feel, my personal opinion is we are being misled here by this minister, and I
wish she would come clean and provide facts and not‑‑
Point of
Order
Mrs. Vodrey: The member continues to use the word
"misleading". He has used that word a number of times, having been
cautioned by yourself at several opportunities.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The minister does
not have a point of order, but I would ask all members to be careful in their
selection of words and the implications of such.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just in my own
comments here, not on a point of order, I should remind the minister to review
Hansard, read Hansard and read the Chairperson's apology to me where he had
incorrectly asked me to withdraw remarks dealing with "misleading" when
they were used in a context which was not an allegation that the minister was
deliberately misleading the committee.
If she is able to go back and read that,
then she would know, before she even decides to attempt a point of order on
this point, that it would be futile to do so.
So I stick by the words I have used.
To me, what we have seen here from the minister is misleading
information in my mind, and I would ask the minister‑‑[interjection]
That is right, in my mind, and any reasonable person's mind‑‑I can
only assume on the basis of what the facts surrounding the cuts are, and what
the minister said by way of explanation.
It just does not jive. It is not
consistent.
Now, will the minister admit it was not
for the reasons she has provided to this committee that these clinicians were
dumped on school divisions, but it was merely to satisfy a need to reduce civil
servants in her department? It was to
make the government look good by showing a shrinking civil service, and it had
nothing to do with maintaining and enhancing service to children, and it had
nothing to do with the other excuses which the minister has given here, and it
had nothing to do with the results of consultation.
* (1550)
Mrs. Vodrey: The member has gone on in quite a long discussion
where some of the facts may be questionable and where I would suggest there
were some misleading statements which the member has continued to put forward
over the course of our discussion. So, absolutely not, I will not confirm,
cannot confirm, would not confirm, his final comments.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister tell us what action she intends to take to deal with the massive
change in staff ratios in this branch?
Mrs. Vodrey: I have explained this particular answer several
times through the course of the afternoon.
When the member looks at some of the staffing changes, we have discussed
that some of those staffing changes are in fact clinicians who will now be
employed by the existing school divisions, and we have also said that the
department will continue to provide support to those clinicians. The department will also assist school
divisions and support school divisions and assist in recruitment and also
supervision for certification.
I have also explained a number of times
this afternoon that we are in a process of reorganization within this
particular division of Education and Training, and with that process, as I am
sure the member would know, the process of change requires a dialogue, and
there has in fact been a consultation, and we have talked about the
consultation which is an internal consultation as well as a consultation with
school divisions, and we have spoken about that process a number of times this
afternoon.
We have also spoken about, within that
process, the work which will establish priorities for service and which will
also bring us to a restructuring of the department. So the answer, Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, to
the member's question remains the same answer that I have provided him several
times this afternoon.
Mr. Plohman: I have to characterize the minister's
summaries that she does so often as a teacher summarizing to the children what
we have learned today in class. It is
absolutely condescending and ridiculous for the minister to continue to repeat
information that is, first of all, not supported by fact and therefore is
information the minister puts forward as an hypothesis about why she has done
certain things.
We do not see it based on fact by the
results, by the information that has been provided to us. It does not make any sense to go out and
consult about cuts that have already been made.
Why not do the consultation first, then take the action after it? The minister has not explained why she did
not use that kind of method in her decision making.
Maybe it would be helpful, so the minister
would have less difficulty understanding the questions, to clarify precisely
why she is consulting as to how many of the 87.5 Administrative Support staff
should be removed as a result of the reorganization that she calls it, after
removing Professional/Technical people. What is the nature of the
classification of those particular individuals, and, of course, I ask this also
about the management.
Let us look at the Administrative
Support. What do we have here? How many secretaries are involved? What other classifications of people are
involved here? And why is it so
incumbent upon the minister now to consult with others outside the department
to determine how many of those people might not be required, after removing all
of the professional people?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the member's final remarks, I can only
understand them to mean that he just does not like the answers.
Now, to the next question of
Administrative Support, the member seems to have been misunderstanding the
issue of restructuring and reading it instead as removing. That is another one of the misunderstandings
that the member has.
When he asks about who is in the
Administrative Support line, they are primarily AY2s and AY3s, which are
secretarial positions.
Mr. Plohman: The minister has maintained the secretarial
positions, AY2s and AY3s, and increased the number of secretaries per staff
from one to four, to now one to three.
What additional administrative work has she identified in this branch
that suddenly requires one secretary for every three professional staff as
opposed to one for every four as was present the previous year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, within the
Administrative Support line, there has been a number of reclassifications, and
those reclassifications were not at our request as a department, but they were
requested by the individual or by the civil service. So, when the member looks at the
classification and where those individuals fall within the lines, that may help
him understand who they are and what their classification is.
Mr. Plohman: Another answer I do not like, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chairperson. I am quite pleased
to admit that I do not like the answers here, and the minister is correct on
that one. These answers are totally
ridiculous. They do not respond to the
questions that I am raising with the minister.
Telling me about reclassifications‑‑so what? I just want to know why she needs 87
secretaries now for 243 staff instead of 85 last year for 343 staff.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in terms of
the workload of those individuals, the workload for those individuals has
remained fairly constant. The
clinicians, whom the member has been referring to on a regular basis, had a
great deal of their work done in schools and not by the department secretaries.
* (1600)
Mr. Plohman: Now, why does the minister feel it incumbent
upon herself to consult with outside groups about how many secretaries she
should have?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let me start
again by clarifying what the consultation will do. This is where the member and I get back to
the member thinking about numbers and my description to him, and explaining to
him that in fact we are looking at programs and priorities, a wider picture,
while the member seems to have been very focused on a specific number or ratio.
Within the consultation process that we
are doing, we are looking at consultation for program priorities. We are looking at consultation to improve our
service, and I can tell the member that our secretarial support staff within
the Department of Education and Training play a very important role. Perhaps the member has not understood
entirely the role that these individuals play.
They are, for many people in
In addition, we employ people within the
Department of Education on contract basis, for instance, people who may be
responsible for Ukrainian education. So
the secretarial support staff is responsible to assist those people and those
numbers whom you see on the chart now and also other contract positions and
individuals who do not appear on the chart.
Then, finally, when I was speaking about reclassification
and the member was having some difficulty in terms of looking at why that would
be important, the reclassification, I am informed, transferred 10 positions
from the Professional/Technical area to the Administrative Support area.
Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister has failed to give any
rationale for why she is now going to consult after making these severe cuts in
one particular area of her department.
She has not provided any evidence that services to children were a
primary consideration. She has not
provided evidence that the reason these cuts were made was for budgetary
purposes, and we can only say that the information that the minister has given
us has been vague and certainly not direct.
Therefore, I move, seconded by the member
for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that this committee condemn the Minister of
Education for failing to provide direct and accurate answers to questions by
members of the opposition.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: I believe I do have an opportunity to speak
to the motion, and I think it is a very important one and certainly would not
offer any support to a motion such as that.
We have been in the Estimates process now
for well over 30 hours, and in that process I believe that the Hansard record
would speak for itself in terms of the kinds of questions which have been put
and the kinds of answers which have been provided. When we look back over the
numbers of questions which have been put over the last 30 hours, we can see
that questions have been delivered over and over again, and the members have
had a great deal of trouble understanding, I think, and holding on to their own
train of thought. It is very interesting
that, when the questions have been asked and the answers have been given, the
members have continually asked and reasked and though people observing have
certainly not had any difficulty in terms of understanding the answers.
So I certainly find that the motion is a
very interesting one and I believe one of the words that was used was the word
"forthcoming." Certainly, in
terms of being forthcoming, we should probably examine the way the Estimates
have gone so far.
We have taken a great deal of time to
explain information which is not necessarily required under a certain budget
line and where members have asked for information which does not require being
answered under this particular budget line and which in fact could be answers
deferred to another time. We did not
defer them, and in fact spent a great deal of time making sure that there was
staff and information available so that the questions could be covered in the
order and the train of thought of the members of the opposition.
As they asked a question, they probably
came upon another question which they would like to ask immediately following.
Instead of deferring that particular answer, I did make a number of attempts to
allow them to have their free‑flowing train of thought and I have
certainly provided them with information and attempted to follow their free‑flowing
train of thought.
So, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think
that, in the very first instance, speaks to how forthcoming the process of this
Estimates has been and how the members of the opposition have been able to look
at a range of information.
Secondly, we have also tabled information
and the members have asked for some detailed information and they have wanted
to have that detailed information available for themselves to look at, I
presume, at this time or at another time.
In allowing that to happen, we have made sure that we have brought
forward a series of information.
I believe that the Hansard would show that
at the beginning of each day there has been information tabled. Today, for example, I tabled the complete
information of the course Skills for Independent Living. That course, we did discuss in detail last
evening and we certainly went over the content topic areas of the course, but
as I explained when I tabled that information today, that it is a very
comprehensive piece of information which has been tabled and it was provided
freely for the members because I understand that they needed that.
* (1610)
We also tabled information regarding
staffing today and in the days previous we have tabled, as the Hansard will
show, quite a great deal of information.
We have been asked for information on statistics and that information
has been provided. We have been asked
information on program philosophies and I have spent a great deal of time
looking at program philosophies as well with the members.
I can say that with this depth of
information, it is very difficult to understand how it would be that the
honourable members would feel that the information provided was not forthright
and did not meet their needs but, certainly, we are not finished the Estimates
process by this point either. As I have
said, we have only accumulated approximately 30 hours. We have a great deal of opportunity to
continue discussing the information required and, certainly, I will continue to
make every effort to provide the information and to answer the questions for
the members of the opposition.
Then I think the Hansard will also show
that questions have been asked from a variety of members. There have been questions, certainly, from
the four critics of Education, and each one has taken an opportunity to ask in
areas of particular interest of themselves.
There have also been questions asked by members who wish to ask
questions on behalf of their constituents.
We have made every effort as well to provide information to members of
various constituencies.
So I believe the record will also show
that questions were answered from a number of different individuals and also
for a number of different purposes which have been required.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would
also like to make a comment on the issue of accuracy, because I believe in the
motion there may be some question around the issue of: Was the information provided accurate? Certainly, where there have been tablings and
certainly where there has been information required‑‑
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I recognize
that the minister is a little embarrassed because none of her colleagues are
here, but we have a motion here‑‑
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The member did not have
a point of order.
Mr. Storie: The minister is simply filibustering this
question.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please.
The member does not have a point of order,
and the member should not be alluding to who is in or out of committee, because
it is the rules of the House. The motion
is under advisement, which will come back.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me pick up where I left off in my
discussion to the motion.
Point of
Order
Mr. Brian Pallister (
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The member did not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: Let me continue my remarks in terms of
speaking to the motion. I believe I was
speaking about the issue of accuracy. In
terms of accuracy, I have explained to the member that we have provided the
information required and, where there has been any question of the issue of
accuracy, I have been very careful‑‑[interjection]
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. I would remind all members that the
honourable minister is speaking.
Mrs. Vodrey: Where there has been any question of the
issue of the complete accuracy of statistics, I can say to the member that that
was immediately acknowledged. If it was
an estimation, an estimation was provided and was followed up by the complete
information being delivered to the member.
Again, last evening, the member for
Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) asked about co‑operation and collaboration as
concepts presented to students within Skills of Independent Living, and I can
tell him that at that time I assured him that these qualities were in fact a
focus of the new curriculum. In terms of
the use of those words, collaboration and co‑operation, I can tell the
member that we have been attempting to provide a great deal of data and
information as an illustrative way of showing collaboration and co‑operation,
and we certainly look to have that information assist the member. Within the Estimates of the Department of
Education and Training, we have again provided that information in a
collaborative way and a co‑operative way‑‑
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. If the conversation could be on the side,
please, while the minister is talking.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, when we look
at how collaboration and co‑operation is accomplished, that has been
accomplished through a number of ways through this committee. If the member wishes to look at Hansard, he
will see that there has certainly been co‑operation in terms of providing
information to the member and in terms of collaborating over the time spent in
the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training. We have really been over the past, now over 30
hours, looking at a number of issues, and again, let me say for the record, the
issues have been considered, not necessarily by budget line but instead by the
free‑floating questions of the members opposite.
There has not been any effort to refuse to
answer, though members may have been directed specifically to a budget line.
They would note that the answers have been provided, and where further
information has been required, then we have made every effort to supply that
further information.
Again, I have been attempting to demonstrate
some of the skills which we hope that students will be able to pick up, skills
of collaboration and co‑operation and also providing answers in a very
clear and direct way. There have been
other times within the Estimates of the Department of Education and Training in
which the member has asked for some philosophical opinions, where I as minister
have been asked for some honest reflection on issues, and that certainly has
also been provided.
We have looked at a number of issues. The member began the Estimates process by
asking about philosophy and where we looked for the Department of Education to
be within the next while, and I have explained to him in the process of
reflection, both as an individual with the skills that I bring to this position
as well as a government, what we are looking to accomplish. One of the issues that we have talked about
as members in this committee over a time has been the issue of consultation and
the issue of process.
Those are two concepts which a great deal
of time has been spent on. In the area
of consultation, we have discussed consultation as it relates to very specific
task forces or jobs which are being done within the Department of Education and
Training. I will give the member again,
by way of example, the task force which was looking to The Public Schools Act
and any changes which will be made there, and that the report which has been
released contains the opinions of 6,000 Manitobans, over 6,000 Manitobans.
* (1620)
Then we have the Task Force on Distance
Education, which also looked at bringing forward information from a number of
Manitobans, and that these task forces have also been representative in
nature. So, when we look at the issue of
consultation, again, where I was asked to reflect as minister in an honest and
an open way on the issue of consultation, examples have been given. I can also say that the same has been done in
the area of process. So, Mr. Acting
Deputy Chair, I can say that I speak very strongly against the motion. In fact, I reject the motion which has been
put forward by the member.
Mr. Plohman: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the
minister has gone on and on again on this particular point about how she
rejects this motion. The fact is it
deals with the symptoms of problems we have had in these Estimates right
through, and we have attempted to question the minister in great detail on
numerous issues, and we cannot get straight answers even when they are evident
from the minister.
It happened as recently as last night when
we were dealing with Answering the Challenge, and we asked the minister about
implementation deadlines and time lines on various strategies. She could not
provide that information. She would not
admit that she was abandoning certain strategies. We asked if any were abandoned. She would not admit that, and yet it is clear
from her answers that she is abandoning some of those. In a roundabout way we have to draw
conclusions, but she will not even admit the simplest error on her part. She will not admit that perhaps things could
have been done another way or that she had not thought of something.
In no circumstances has she provided any
admission that would indicate to us that she is willing to operate in a
straightforward manner to the committee.
We see that with the provision of information. We ask about audit information for internal
audits that were not complete. She says
she will not provide it to the opposition when it is complete. She did not explain why clinicians were
dumped onto school boards without any consultation, when she said that
consultation was the primary consideration and that services to children were a
major concern. She did not admit that,
no matter how much questioning we did on it.
The fact is that it is evident that she has not kept face or been
consistent with her words in terms of her actions.
In too many cases, she has provided
misinformation that has required numerous questioning techniques, going over
material over and over to get her to even provide the simplest of facts. She talks
about consultation ad nauseam. Yet, when
it comes to consultation on fundamental issues, we see no evidence of it. For
example, she talks about reform of the education system. Yet, there is no plan. We could not get any information about a plan‑‑no
timetable, no time line, no idea, no concept of whether this was a major reform
or a minor reform of the act. There was
just no information there.
She will not even admit that parallel
programming, through a Francophone division in existing school divisions is
going to cost more money, a simple concept to understand, no admission that
this would be the case. She has avoided
providing any direct and accurate answers to the members of the opposition
during these Estimates.
I can only say that it is high time we
move this kind of a motion to draw attention to the fact that this minister is
refusing to provide direct answers to the questions being asked. That is why we
have moved this.
It is nice to see that finally she was
able to bring in some support for her Estimates. At one time, she had the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
answering questions for her. Now
finally, she was able to drag in some members to support her on the vote after
about five or 10 minutes of rambling on in a way that in no way supported her contention
that this motion was not relevant.
I hope members of the government that are
here will point to their colleague and say, you have to be straightforward, you
have to be direct with the members of the opposition, you have to provide
answers. We demand that you, as a member
of our caucus, will provide answers to the opposition in the Estimates process,
because this undermines the whole Legislative process. It is not following proper parliamentary
traditions.
Clearly, no parliamentary tradition is
being honoured by this minister by belittling the process that she is now
involved in in the Estimates process. It
is a time to provide facts and information to the opposition and to the public
through the parliamentary system and tradition in this province. She has not done that, and that is why we
want this motion passed.
I move that the question be put.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): On the question brought forth
by the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman), question:
I move, seconded by the member for
Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that this committee condemn the Minister of Education
for failing to provide direct and accurate answers to questions by members of
the opposition.
All those in favour of the proposed motion
will please say yea.
Some Honourable Members: Yea.
The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr.
Reimer): All those opposed to the motion
will please say nay.
Some Honourable Members: Nay.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): In my opinion, the
Nays have it.
Mr. Plohman: On division.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): It is on division.
Mr. Plohman: Now that we have got some interest in the
Estimates process of the Department of Education, I want to ask the minister
once again whether she can rationalize making decisions in her department, in
the Department of Education and Training, where she has maintained the
management at a level that is almost as high as it was the previous year, with
a ratio that is now much higher in terms of management to administrative staff,
and why she has also increased the administrative support, while she has
reduced the Professional/Technical people that provide services to children by
way of the clinicians that were offering services in the past to school
divisions throughout this province.
The minister has cut some 60
clinicians. She has no guarantee that
they are going to be rehired by school divisions throughout this province. She has eliminated services to children and
yet she has told us that her primary consideration was to provide services and
protect services to children. We do not
see that here. We do not see any
evidence of it; the minister's answers did not provide any information on that
area.
So I want the minister, now that she has
some colleagues here to give her support, the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard)
and the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), the Minister of Culture
(Mrs. Mitchelson) and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) all at this
committee now, will she tell the answers, give the answers to this committee
exactly why she made these hasty decisions at the last minute without
consultation and how she can attempt to rationalize that this was done in the
best interests of services to children?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, before the
motion presented, I answered all of those questions fully and the answers now
remain the same as the answers I provided before we had the interruption.
Mr. Plohman: Well, it is typical of the forthcoming
nature. Now, we just talked about that in the motion here.
The minister seems reluctant to try to
explain the unexplainable in front of her colleagues because she knows, in
fact, that they will say: You did
that? That is ridiculous. Why did you
not tell us that?
It is clear that the minister did not have
any rationale for the decisions made.
Point of
Order
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Northern Affairs): The
member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) does not need to speak on behalf of any of the
minister's colleagues. We are quite
capable of speaking on behalf of ourselves and we speak very supportively of
our Minister of Education (Mrs. Vodrey).
Some Honourable Members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Thank you for the
member's comments, but the member's comments are out of order. The member did
not have a point of order. Pardon me.
* * *
* (1630)
Mr. Plohman: Good point, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
So the minister had provided the committee
with information. I see she is going back over her notes to try to get the
answers again.
The fact is that this is misinformation,
in our opinion, because if she had consulted and listened to the people she
consulted with, she would not have taken this decision to offload these
clinicians on local school divisions with a grant that was not sufficient to
support that.
She would not, if she had made decisions
that were consistent with good management, have allowed the management ratio to
increase while professional staff were decreasing. She would not have left the department with a
much greater number of Administrative Support while she has cut professional
people who provide services to children.
So I can only assume then, from the
answers that the minister has given, if she can call them or characterize them
answers, that in fact she did not consider those aspects when making these
hasty cuts at the last minute for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) so that
it would somehow help his position with the public, that he is shrinking the
civil service. It was a desire to meet
the need to reduce civil servants without regard to the service they were
delivering.
I put that on the table for the minister
to respond to.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let us go over
the total answer again.
The Department of Education and Training
historically has provided a leadership role during the past two decades to
ensure that clinician services were developed in the rural divisions and the
rural districts and in the isolated areas of the province. As I said to the
member, when I first came to
I can tell the member that these services
are well established and that the department involvement in a day‑to‑day
operation now is a time that school divisions may wish to act as the direct
employers. I see the member nodding his
head. He obviously nods in agreement.
Point of
Order
Mr. Plohman: The minister was nodding her head last night
when I was making a point and I noted that in Hansard as a fact. In this case, I am signing letters here ignoring
the minister's ignorant answers, repetitive answers which have not provided any
light on the situation over and over again.
If she wants to continue to do that, that is fine, but she is wasting
the time of the committee.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. The member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) did not
have a point of order.
Point of
Order
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): On a point of order, I think this is the
height of arrogance on behalf of the member for Dauphin who says he is ignoring
an answer on Education that he claims on behalf of his party as critic to be an
important issue for Manitobans. What
arrogance, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I would point out
that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) did not have a point of order, but I
would also mention that this‑‑[interjection] But I would remind all
members of the dignity and decorum of language in the presence.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: So I was now at the point of describing to
the member that clinicians will now be employed by their home school
divisions. I spoke about it previously,
and I explained to the member that home school divisions now have the
opportunity to work directly with their clinicians. I have also spoken about my own work as a
clinician when I have had the opportunity to work on behalf of students
directly with those people within school divisions who are ones who will be
making the decisions. That is now the
situation in which clinicians will be working.
The Department of Education and Training, however, will continue to
provide support, and as I have said to the member, we provide support in the
area of recruitment. We will also
provide support in the area of supervision, and particularly in the area of
supervision for certification because clinicians do need to be certified to
work in this province as do teachers.
We have spoken about the support which has
been offered on behalf of clinicians to school divisions which is financial,
that support which flows through the Ed funding formula, and also that support
which comes through the supplementary area of the Ed funding formula. As soon school divisions as employers assume
control of clinician services, as I have explained to the member, then we are
looking at people working directly with their employing authority and also
support within the financial area flowing through the funding formula.
Then we have also spoken about, when we
look at staffing, the change in terms of the staffing of clinicians, and that
is some very good reasoning on behalf of clinicians to be employed by their
home school divisions. As I have said
previously, there are 19 divisions who currently operate under that model, so
we are certainly aware of how the model can work and also have said to school
divisions that they may like to come together as a regional group and look at
what their needs are. There are a number
of ways in which school divisions may determine the kinds of clinician services
that they wish to have.
When the member has then asked about a
look in total at the staffing of the Program Development and Support Services
area, he has asked questions about the Administrative Support service. In answering that question previously, I have
given him a number of pieces of information, one piece being that those people
offer support, not only to the numbers that he sees listed on the chart but
also to those people who work on a contract basis with the Department of
Education and Training, and so they are required to provide that kind of
support for those individuals.
I also explained that the clinicians, who
previously were employed by our department, often had their administrative
support provided within the schools where they are working. The administrative support and the numbers
which he sees listed before him on the chart, which I provided to him earlier
today, those individuals did not necessarily provide the full administrative
support to the clinicians. They do provide
administrative support for people who are not necessarily listed on the chart
because they are contract people.
The third point that I have made around
that matter is that there were reclassifications last year and there have been
10 individuals who have been reclassified from the Professional/Technical area
into the Administrative Support area, so that then changes the numbers and the
ratio.
I believe that explanation deals with (1)
the clinicians employment to school divisions and (2) looking at our staff
complement.
The third area that the member has raised
for a number of times this afternoon is the issue of consultation. Again, I can reply that we are restructuring
and reorganizing this particular division of the Department of Education and Training. As we look to that reorganization within this
division, we have done a consultation around that reorganization to look at how
we can provide the best service to
In addition, we have also done a
consultation within our own staff as well as externally with those people who
are our clients. We have felt that the
consultation on both sides is important because that consultation will allow
for within the department a more corporate view, a view in which people will
understand how their work actually interfaces with other people who are working
within the Department of Education, but we will also get from those people who
are our clients how we can in fact provide the best service, where we can make
improvements, how we can provide the most efficient leadership.
I believe that is the third area that the
member has asked about, and I am pleased to provide that information to him
again.
* (1640)
Mr. Plohman: Let the record show that the minister had no
rational answer for maintaining management at an inordinately high level this
year, that after the cuts to professional services. Let the record show that there was no
consultation prior to the cuts of commissioners, and let the record show‑‑
Point of
Order
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):
Let the record show that those are the opinions of the member for
Dauphin only.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): The minister did not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Plohman: Nor can that member speak on behalf of my
colleagues. The Minister of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh) is speaking only for herself.
Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let the
record show the minister decided in her brilliant wisdom without consultation
and against the wishes of school boards that clinicians should be in the employ
of school divisions at the local level.
Those are some of the major points where answers were not provided in an
in‑depth way that made any sense to any rational person in the
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): I wanted to follow up on some of the questions
of the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
He was asking about the International Baccalaureate program and his
questions, I think, were reflecting upon or asking the minister to reflect upon
the relationship between curriculum in Manitoba and curriculum which is derived
from outside. Can I just start with a
couple of questions on statistics, really?
The minister said there were five schools offering IB in
Mrs. Vodrey: I am pleased to provide the names of the
schools offering the international baccalaureate:
Ms. Friesen: Those are all in
Mrs. Vodrey: All of these schools are within the
Perimeter.
Ms. Friesen: I am interested in the changes in
enrollment. I do not know enough about
the enrollment to say whether it is continuing in expansion or what rate it is
expanding at. It is obvious that the
number of schools is expanding. Over,
for example, I believe about eight or nine years ago there were only two or
three schools which were offering IB, and so I wonder is it expanding, is it
contracting or is it just that we are offering program in a wider range of
schools?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, from 1985 through
1993, there have been five schools, so it has been stable for approximately
eight years.
Ms. Friesen: The other part of my question was, what have
the numbers been like in those schools?
Are the registrations expanding or contracting?
Mrs. Vodrey: The number of students totally participating
in the IB has been fairly consistent. However,
there has been a decline in those students taking the full diploma and more
students taking the certificate level.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister provide some numbers on
that? Relatively stable at around what level?
Mrs. Vodrey: I do have some of the actual numbers for the
school year '92‑93. At
Ms. Friesen: Are these graduating numbers? These are not the numbers for Grades 11 and
12. These are actually the numbers who
graduate with a diploma and those who graduate with a certificate?
Mrs. Vodrey: These are the graduate numbers.
Ms. Friesen: The minister is clear then that those numbers
have not changed in the period since 1985 within what, 10 percent?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that in total the numbers have
remained relatively stable. There may
have been a slight decline, but by and large we have seen them as stable, but
the change has been in the area where we have noticed more students of that
total taking the certificate as opposed to the diploma.
Ms. Friesen: Can the minister give me an idea of how big
that shift has been? Is it, say, a 50
percent shift or is it a 20 percent?‑‑roughly.
Mrs. Vodrey: The numbers that I have available at the
moment, for Kelvin we had in 1986 approximately 23 students did the diploma
level of 40 students, and so at that time it was approximately 23 students did
the diploma level of 40 students. So at that time, it was approximately 2 to
1. The numbers which we have for the
1993 graduating are eight in the diploma, 41 in the certificate, and that is
now a 1 to 5 ratio.
Ms. Friesen: What is the minister's reflection upon
this? What does she think is
happening? Why is this happening?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, again, I would
remind the member that these particular courses are not the courses of the
Department of Education and Training.
These are courses which are offered as a local option within individual
school divisions. Our concerns for
students are that they complete the
But in terms of speculating about some
numbers, certainly there are more programs in local areas which look at gifted
education. There is in fact a more
strong local program. Previously, a number of students may have come into the
program from other divisions in which there was not a program offered. So some
of the change may simply be that there are other gifted programs available.
In addition, there are also programs,
other courses, which are available in terms of the advanced placement from the
universities.
Ms. Friesen: The question I was asking was, in a program
where numbers have remained relatively stable and there has been a shift from
students who, for example‑‑and the only example we have here is
Kelvin, where half the students were going for a diploma some years ago, and
now, much larger numbers are opting for a lesser program. That concerns me and that is really what I am
asking.
Why are students who are presumably the
most academically inclined, at least within the city of
I am looking at it, not from the concerns
of any particular program or any particular group of students, but from the
overall perspective of the goals and standards that we are setting in
* (1650)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, the choices appear
to be more a matter of choosing a different pattern. I explain the difference as, the diploma
students complete the extended essay and take three subjects at a higher level;
certificate students take a mixture of what is a regular set of offerings
within their school as well as the IB.
As I said in my last answer, we recognize
that there are stronger offerings made available within local schools, and
those offerings conform to the
Ms. Friesen: I can see how that might be a useful answer
in the context of one school division, but we are looking at the context of one
program which has seen a significant shift with students opting for a lesser
academic program than similar students did from same schools in fact seven or
eight years ago or whatever years we are looking at.
It is that shift that concerns me, because
I wonder if it is a reflection of what is happening generally in
I am not criticizing the teachers or the
schools. Is there a sense of peer
activity or peer consensus in the schools which says it is okay to do less, it
is okay to take less, it is okay to opt for the lesser program, because that
seems to be the conclusion that one could draw from what has happened at least
with the numbers that we have so far?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member is
speculating. I would say that her
speculation is not correct.
If we come back to the answers which I
have already given, and again she is asking me to look at comparing a program
which is not a program or a course of study of the Department of Education with
courses of study which are offered from the Department of Education.
As I have said, there has been a growth in
strong programs which are being offered by the Department of Education within
the
We have been looking at the IB being
offered within five high schools within the Perimeter. As I have been saying to her, when I look at
the program of education, I see students' offerings being strengthened and
strengthened in more than just these five high schools. I would say that the speculation that the
member is drawing and a speculation of students wanting to do less, my sense is
that is not the case. The case is, in
fact, that we have more students in more high schools interested in strong
programming rather than only in a cluster setting.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
so quickly rushes to a confrontation. I
really am very concerned about that kind of consensus which I see in students
and in some programs. I was not
commenting at all upon the
I was asking the minister, and yes, I was
very clear that I was speculating, what the reason for this is, and does she as
Minister of Education have any concerns?
Is it for example confined only to this program? Is it something which is more broadly
reflective of larger issues in the school.
I mean, one of the things that concerns me
very greatly about our schools is the very high proportion of students who are
working many long hours and students who are not looking at education as their
first task.
In some ways what I see in the
Baccalaureate Program is a shift that says, yes, that is okay and that school
is becoming less of a focus for students but more of something which is in many
schools a part‑time activity.
Those are the kinds of concerns I am
trying to put on the record and to look for some reflection from the Minister
of Education as to what her concerns are.
Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly have been reflecting on the
issues of offerings for students and student achievement, but the member, in
her questioning, did refer to course offerings other than the International
Baccalaureate as less and as perhaps not being as strong.
So my response to the member‑‑
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please.
Point of
Order
Ms. Friesen: The minister is putting on record things
which I did not say. I said that there
has been a shift from the diploma, from the focused. If she wants to get into it, we can look at
the difference between the diploma and the certificate programs, but I never
said they were less. I am talking about
a shift within that program from people who choose not to do the higher level
but are clearly choosing only the lower level.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. The member for Wolseley did not have a point
of order. The minister to continue.
* * *
Mrs. Vodrey: When we have been looking at the kinds of
courses that students are taking and the member has asked me to speculate on why
students may have moved from the diploma to the certificate, the answer that I
did give her was that there are strengthened course offerings within individual
schools.
I also understand, as we look at education
in
So I just wanted to make it clear that on
behalf of students in
I know that the member has spoken about
the IB only being available in the city of
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. The hour being five o'clock, time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
ENVIRONMENT
* (1430)
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Environment. We are on item 2.(b)(1) on page 51 of the
Estimates manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter
the Chamber.
2.(b) Environmental Management (1)
Salaries $3,355,500.
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): I do
not have any questions.
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Madam Chairperson, how many staff are there
covered by this salary appropriation?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): There are 82.13 in
appropriation 31‑2B.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, can the minister tell us
how many positions are vacant in this appropriation?
Mr. Cummings: The vacancy rate in the department is about 5
percent I believe at this juncture. In
that particular section there are no vacancies.
Mr. Storie: I did not hear the minister's last comment.
Madam Chairperson: Would the honourable Minister of Environment
please repeat his response? The
honourable member for Flin Flon has indicated he did not hear the response.
Mr. Cummings: There are no vacancies in that section, Madam
Chairperson.
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 2.(b)(1) Salaries pass?
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, the minister indicated
that the department has a vacancy rate of 5 percent overall, but there is no
vacancy in this particular area in the department. Can the minister indicate whether there is a
policy within the department or is he given instruction from Treasury Board to
maintain a certain vacancy level within staff positions in the department?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, we have some new positions
to fill, which is contributing to what would be a normal vacancy of around 3
percent, I would expect.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, am I to take it from that
response that a 3 percent level is considered normal and the department tries
to maintain that level?
Mr. Cummings: I am told that as much as 5 percent would be
normal.
Mr. Storie: My question was more direct. The question was: Is the department instructed to maintain that
level, or is it the department's goal to have full employment, staff positions,
at all times?
Mr. Cummings: No.
Mr.
Storie: Madam Chairperson, within
this appropriation, how many of the staff that the minister referred to are
professional, or considered a professional designation?
Mr. Cummings: 65.13 are professionals.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, of those 65, how many are
visible minorities? What percentage are
women? Does that number coincide with the
overall objectives for affirmative action targets set by the Civil Service
Commission?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, I am told we do not have
the statistics here, but it would be fair to say that visible minorities and
women employees are underrepresented in the department. We have been working over the last few years
to address that. As I understand the
make‑up of the department, it started off with a very high percentage of
male professionals from the group that was originally‑‑going back
to when this group came out of Natural Resources. So, yes, we have some way to go.
As I recall the mix, and I do not have the
figures here, I think we have begun to see women rise to higher levels within
the department.
Mr. Storie: I am wondering if the minister could tell us
how many positions are currently being bulletined in this area, or are there
any?
Mr. Cummings: In this particular area, there would be none,
obviously, because there are no vacancies.
I am told that there are about six being bulletined right now.
Mr. Storie: Of those six, are any designated as belonging
to affirmative action? Do any of those
have affirmative action designation?
Mr. Cummings: All of them.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, I hope that means that we
will see eventually some results. It is
not good enough simply to have that designation unless there is actually the
political will and the commitment to see that policy enforced.
This branch also is responsible for the
licensing provisions related to, I assume, projects like the Flin Flon
operation, the Flin Flon smelter. Is
that correct? I wonder if the minister
could table for us then a recent or an up‑to‑date analysis of the
number of times in the last year that the smelter has exceeded the emission
standards set by the department, the Clean Environment Commission?
* (1440)
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Mr. Storie: Can the minister share a copy with myself and
the Environment critic? Can the minister
indicate, perhaps verbally, whether the experience in the last six months has
shown any deterioration in terms of violations of existing standards?
Mr. Cummings: We do not have all of the precise data here,
but I am told the trend has been to a considerable improvement in recent
months.
Mr. Storie: I am not sure whether the minister is
referring to the last six months.
Certainly there was some concern in the fall about a series of incidents
really that exceeded the guidelines.
Mr. Cummings: I was referring to the last two to three
months. There may well have been some exceedances in the period that the member
is talking about.
Mr. Storie: The question would be, what is the normal
practice for the department when the guidelines are violated persistently?
Mr. Cummings: I would presume that the member is probably
as conversant with this as I am, but I am sure he would like to have something
on the record to take back to his constituents.
It is well known that, first of all, a warning system, which was a
change which occurred since I became responsible for this department, was
implemented where exceedances occur. If
it appears that it is going to be persistent and problematic, the company would
then be asked to cut back on production.
Because of the age of the facility and all the other things associated
with it, we cannot manage the emissions in any other way but to cut back on
production.
Mr. Storie: I am wondering whether the department has
ever had an opportunity or had the occasion to require a cutback on production.
Mr. Cummings: No, but I would think that when you have
implemented the warning process, you are on the first step toward doing
it. Some of the things that the company
is doing, I am not totally conversant with this, but I believe I understand the
process. It may even well be able to
adapt some of their feed processes in order to cut back on their emissions, but
the fact is we have not implemented a cutback yet. One of the problems is, of course, that the
plant is not particularly flexible in its operations.
I cannot let this go by, however, without
indicating that these are the reasons, along with a number of other economic
ones, that it is important that the plant upgrade proceed and has been
proceeding and the repair and upgrade that is in place has the potential to
deal with the most serious part of the emissions.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
whether he has had any correspondence or has been in communication with
HBM&S about the potential in‑service date for the zinc pressure leach
plant?
Mr. Cummings: I do not recall any direct communication to
me. I am told at the staff level there
have certainly been communications on that matter.
Mr. Storie: Can the minister indicate when that is
projected to take place and what the department's expectations are with respect
to the reduction of both particulate matter and SO2 emissions.
Mr. Cummings: The potential dates were June or possibly
July. Obviously, we expect significant reductions in particulate
emissions. We expect 50 percent
reduction in particulate emissions and this will bring compliance to our acid
rain regulatory requirements.
We would also expect to see a 25 percent
reduction in sulphur emissions at the same time.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, just a final question on
this topic. I had understood from information
that was provided by HBM&S early on in this process that they had
anticipated an 80 or 90 percent reduction in particulate matter, but it leads
to the more general question of: What is
the department's role in terms of monitoring the end result of this
modernization process, and what sort of contingency plans does the department
have should the guidelines that were established for 1994 not be met if for
some reason the equipment does not function as originally designed or there are
other operating problems which prevent it?
Mr. Cummings: I suppose my immediate tongue‑in‑cheek
reaction is, given the size of the cost overrun, it better work or there would
be heads rolling, I would think, within the corporation.
I am not sure if I can answer the question
directly in terms of the discrepancy between what he believes will be the
ultimate particulate reduction and what information I have that may relate to
the full completion of the upgrade. We
are the monitoring authority. We have
our station in place, and we will continue with the monitoring program. I am not anticipating any of the possible
problems that the member has indicated.
Obviously, the full rehabilitation is not going to be complete right
away, but the most important part that we needed in the short term is going to
be done.
Mr. Storie: On another matter, I believe that recently
the community of
Mr. Cummings: Yes, I recently received further
communication from that community regarding the dust. When we investigated it before and began to
work with the Department of Energy and Mines, who have lead responsibility in
terms of control, as I recall at that point, we did not establish that this was
a major health risk or that this was a problem.
It is obviously a problem but a problem of maybe lesser magnitude than
what the member may even have just portrayed.
But we are again back there on site with officials from Energy and Mines
to see what can be done in this respect.
It could be a very costly and even difficult problem in order to keep
this pile down.
* (1450)
It is one of those things that obviously
one needs to be concerned about when we open new mines, that we do not have
these kinds of problems lingering after the value has been taken out of the
mine and we do not have sufficient capability of rehabilitation of tailings or
other remains. But the issue is not
dead, and we have been back. I have not
received the results of officials going back to the site. I will be prepared to report once we have that
information back from our officers that went to the site.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, is the minister saying
that the financial responsibility for whatever remedial action is necessary
lies with the Department of Energy and Mines?
Is there no responsibility to the previous leaseholder, the mining
company, SherrGold, DCC, any of the other principals that were involved?
Mr. Cummings: With The Mines Act, I am told that the
property and the responsibility reverted to the province.
Madam Chair, last night, when we finished off,
we were discussing the
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Ms. Cerilli: Why is it, then, when I ask questions about
this in Question Period, that information of the concerns by the federal
government was not put on the record? I
have asked questions about this, and the minister has not indicated that these
departments have raised these concerns, particularly about the fish habitat,
the implications for fish.
Mr. Cummings: Firstly, it is part of the normal process to
have various agencies, nationally and provincially, comment on the
guidelines. The process, then, flows
from those comments. There may well be
disagreements between various technical people or different points of view, but
ultimately those discussions have to be resolved before the Clean Environment
Commission can make a decision, because they will have to be satisfied that
either the questions are answered or they are not.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, it is particularly a concern when we
have disputes over what the flows are going to be, and disputes over, for
example, in this case, who is going to be doing the base line studies. I would ask the minister, with respect to one
of the concerns raised by the city, his understanding of who is going to be
conducting the studies to provide the data on the effects on the riverbanks in
Mr. Cummings: Any of the information that is required will
have to be supplied by the proponent.
The type of information that the member is talking about may well be
available already. I am not privy to
that.
Ms. Cerilli: Who is responsible for telling the proponent
to do that, in what form is that direction supposed to come, and when is it
supposed to come? As I understand it,
the city still has not been made aware that those concerns have been addressed.
Mr. Cummings: As I have been saying for some time, it is
either in response to the guidelines that are laid out or in response to
questions that the commission will ask.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, if that is not raised until during the
hearings, if that is what the minister means, then how is that information
supposed to be reviewed during that process if it is not going to be assigned
to them until the hearings?
One of the concerns is that the people
preparing for the hearings now do not have all the information that they feel
they need to make a proper assessment, and if the proponent is not going to be
directed until the hearings to do this kind of research.
Mr. Cummings: The commission will make a decision on the
relevancy of the questions as well. They
might, I suppose, as part of the review, weigh whether or not the amount of
withdrawal is in relationship to the normal flows in the river, whether or not
all those questions are completely relevant to this withdrawal.
Ms. Cerilli: With respect to the discussion we were having
yesterday then, where would the proponents be getting their information about
the flows and the changes the flow would effect on the riverbank? Where would they be getting that information?
Mr. Cummings: There is a multiple of sources from which
they could glean the information. It
could come from existing government information. It could come from preexisting studies that
have been done by various authorities.
It could come from work they may have done currently as a result of a
contract in their own contractors. It
could have come from preexisting work done by federal authorities. There is a wide range of areas from which
they could get the information.
Ms. Cerilli: Is it not the provincial government's
responsibility to keep that data, to keep the information on minimum flow?
Mr. Cummings: Well, Madam Chairperson, I feel a little bit
like I am getting poked in the same spot over and over again about minimum
flows. The answer is that there are not
any minimum flows that have been set, and one should not interpret the studies
that were put together as setting or changing the flow regimes in the
river. That was the answer that was
provided by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns).
The Clean Environment Commission will
obviously review that information, but I really think it is inappropriate for
the member to continually put on the record that the minimum flows have been
established or changed. That is not the
information that I have, and I do not think it is the information that she has,
because in my view she is interpreting it wrongly.
The fact is that the setting of a minimum
flow was not contemplated. The
commission will look at the regimes in the river, what the full range of
possibilities are, and they will have to make a decision following that. This debate becomes completely circular when
we start talking about the management or withdrawal of the water without
talking about the full range of opportunities that are out there. As Minister of Environment, I cannot get into
that debate. The Minister of Natural
Resources (Mr. Enns) might better be able to answer some of the questions
because the department of Water Resources reports to him.
* (1500)
I have to be very careful that I do not
attempt to prejudge or pre‑empt information that may go before the Clean
Environment Commission. So I ask my
critic to take a look at that in the broader sense.
The environmental impact assessment will
be reviewed by the commission, and we or any other member of this House in
debate with myself or the Minister of Natural Resources cannot prereview the
environmental assessment. If we attempt
to, we are in fact short‑circuiting the process. I think that we both have enough respect for
the process that we would not want to do that.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister talks about respect for a
process and already we are seeing that if the assessment is supposed to be
identifying the impact of a diversion on the flow and there is no base‑line
data, we cannot even find out specifically by whom the base‑line data is
supposed to be set and to make sure that we have all of the information
necessary to arrive at that data available to the Clean Environment Commission
so that if now their job is not only to assess the effect of the diversion but
is also to figure out what is supposed to be the flow requirements for the river
coming into Winnipeg, this is ridiculous.
The city engineers are obviously calling
into question the government's independence in this case. They are calling into question their
providing all the information and ensuring that all the information necessary
is going to be made available.
Mr. Cummings: I find it very strange, Madam Chairperson,
that the opponents, in this case the city engineers, go off halfcocked and not
supply any substantiating information regarding the wild and irrational, in my
judgment, comments that they have made about water flows in the city, but
everyone else in the eyes of the critic is expected to fully document and
support everything that is being considered prior to any opportunity to
properly present that information.
You cannot have it both ways. We have wild‑eyed criticisms out there
that are not being substantiated. If
they are being substantiated, then I respect them but, when they are simply
statements of fear, then it is not helpful to the debate.
Now, the next part of the question raises
concerns with me about whether or not there are documented records of flows in
the
Ms. Cerilli: I do not think we are trying to review the
impact. We are trying to make sure that there is proper information. I think it is a completely legitimate
question for me to ask, where did the proponent get the information of 100 cfs?
Mr. Cummings: I suspect that if one were to look at the
environmental impact assessment, those figures may well be in there for
modelling purposes. If the member wishes
to draw conclusions, one way or the other on that, that will be her own
conclusions, but let us let the commission have an opportunity to look at the
figures.
I refuse to be put in the position of
prejudging what the commission will want to hear. The sources for information will be cited in
the impact assessment, and I wonder if the member has looked at those sources
or if her sources have given her that information. They seem to be able to bring forward
clandestine faxes and read selectively from them, but nevertheless they do not
want to look at the broad figures that are available.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not think it is being selective to have
to understand what it is the Clean Environment Commission is supposed to be
assessing the flow from. What I was asking
is‑‑and the minister talks about discussions in circles‑‑where
would the proponent get the figure of 100 cfs to put in their environmental
impact statement? That is where we saw
the figure and that is the figure that is being put into question. Why would they know to base their proposal on
that figure? This calls the whole
project into question. Is that flow
going to be satisfactory?
Mr. Cummings: I would like the member to look at what the
attributive source is for that information.
That will be the source. It must
be written in there somewhere. They
cannot pull figures out of the air. I
think I know what the answer is, but you are going to have to read it yourself.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, that seems to be what the City of
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, the member seems unwilling
to accept the explanation of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) which
was clearly given in this House yesterday and the day before and repeated by
myself. If she will not accept the
information that we give her, then she must be saying that we are trying to lie
or mislead in our answers regarding where this figure may have come from.
* (1510)
I do not think that without getting into a
verbal hair pull, this question is going to get any different answer than it
has been getting for the last day and a half.
I would love to get into the debate if I were the proponent, but I am
not the proponent. My responsibility is
to make sure that the process is clear, that it is clean, if you will, in terms
of access and access to information.
The member did point out that she believes
1989 was one of the lower flows. I would
bet that if she were to check into the 1930s, she would find that it was as low
as 50 cfs. That probably raises the
question about whether or not the dam at Shellmouth is having any impact on the
flow in the river.
Ms. Cerilli: I think that there are a number of other
questions that could be asked on this, and I can see that the Minister of
Environment is, well, stonewalling. It
is going to be interesting to see how these issues are handled with the Clean
Environment Commission.
I would just hope, after listening to his
discussion with the member for
In his opinion or understanding, what is
the status of the federal consideration of the project at this point?
Mr. Cummings: It is in the hands of the various
agencies. As I said yesterday, it in
fact is not in their hands because a decision has not been finalized in terms
of anything that would require or that would cause the trigger, if you will,
for them to be pulled into the process.
As I tried to explain last night, and I believe the member concurs with
me, this is a most difficult area. It
hangs on very minute legal points as to whether or not decisions were made in
the proper sequence, whether or not they were in fact made, whether or not they
had the information that they needed in order to be made.
Those seem to be the types of concerns
that swirl around the federal decision‑making process. Our process is underway, but I wish to again
reiterate that nothing will happen on this project until all the federal and
provincial approvals have been achieved.
How the federal process will ultimately end up, I cannot predict, but
they will have to give an approval through a proper process of their own before
we can assume that this project is going to get their blessing or get any kind
of approval. Nothing will occur until
they have done a proper process.
They will have to look over the whole
gamut, if in fact they become involved, and make a decision based on the
information that is available. It is
convoluted. It is unwieldy. It leaves the provinces wondering when the
federal authorities are going to make a decision and what kind of decision it
is going to be. But until the new
Environment Act is in place, given the court rulings that we have had over the
last few years, believe me, the last thing I need is any problems in this area,
the last thing this government would want is any problems in this area, and we
will be very careful about how we deal with this project and make sure that the
approvals are properly handled.
Ms. Cerilli: I think the question, from the minister's
response, would have to be, in his understanding then, if this project just
seems to not trigger the triggers, what are the requirements for the federal
process? Can the minister describe from
his understanding what the requirements are?
Mr. Cummings: The answer is going to be difficult to
explain, but if there are no triggers, they will not need to make a
decision. Until they have come to a
conclusion of whether or not there are in fact triggers that would require them
to make a decision, they will not be starting their decision‑making
process. That is the advice that comes
out from the agencies to other agencies.
I think that it simply adds to the confusion, but it is the way they
have to operate. They have to meet the
responsibilities of FEARO, and we cannot prejudge how they are going to do
that.
Ms. Cerilli: As I understand it, one of the triggers would
be that it is on a navigable waterway, that is federal jurisdiction. Another one would be that it has federal
funding from a federal agency, and it fulfills that requirement. Another one would be that there is an impact
on aboriginal lands. So there are three
that are outlined in the act federally, meaning that there should be federal
involvement in the assessment.
The other thing is, as I have gotten memos
today, we know that there are federal departments looking at this already. I think the concern is that we want to have
those federal agencies, which have a lot of research capability and expertise,
to have input into the assessment.
Mr. Cummings: The aboriginal, the waterways, those are all
potentially triggers. But there may well
not be impacts in those areas that would be significant enough to cause those
triggers to be used.
It is not my decision. The federal authority will have to make that
decision. As I said last night in these Estimates,
there has been an aura built up over the years that those who are not satisfied
with provincial decisions have always said, well, the federal authority has to
come in and make a decision.
The fact is that they have far less
responsibility in many of these areas than the province does. So we will have to wait until they make a
decision. They will be held accountable
for their decision. It should not, in
anybody's mind, reflect on whether or not the province has an ability to
proceed with its own hearings. We will
be held accountable for our process. The
federal authorities might decide it is an insufficient process to answer some
of their questions, they might decide that it is. Those are all wide‑open
questions.
For example, whether or not there is
federal involvement in any potential project in terms of a commitment of
dollars, that also might be a trigger, but those commitments have not been
made. Now, when the member from
The Minister of Transport could require a
permit under the Navigable Waters Act or he might not. If he does not, then there is no
trigger. The member, nor should I,
assume that there will be a permit required under the Navigable Waters
Act. I presume that if sanity prevails
that might well be governed on whether or not there is a structure that impacts
on the river. Those are the kinds of
things that we cannot answer today.
Ms. Cerilli: The other issue that gets raised when we talk
about the federal process and when I talk to the federal environment review
office, they clarified that there is no requirement, that they make the
decision and the rationale for their decision, I guess, public, that they are
really not accountable, which is a problem.
The minister has some other information for me on that?
* (1520)
Mr. Cummings: I am not going to spend any time defending
the federal process, but it is my understanding that if they do a screening
process that they have to then defend that and give their reasons.
Ms. Cerilli: Okay, I am going to move on to another area.
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 2.(b) Environmental Management (1)
Salaries‑‑
Ms. Cerilli: No, no.
Another issue, not another area.
Madam Chair, I want to ask some questions
related to the 15 appeals that the minister received related to the Clean
Environment Commission report on the Abitibi licence. I would ask:
What is the status? I understand
that those appeals, letters should be replied to. Why has the minister not replied? These
groups and individuals have gotten no response, as I understand it. So what is happening with that area?
Mr. Cummings: There is no time requirement in which to
respond, although one should not assume that that time commitment would go on
for an indefinite period of time.
We have not made a decision on a number of
the things that are related to the appeals that we have received.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister clarify for us what issues
were Raised in the appeals and how they would be responding to them, the
department?
Mr. Cummings: Obviously, one of them was whether or not
there was logging allowed in certain areas, whether or not the bridges would be
allowed on the Manigotagan, what the width of, I believe‑‑I am
going by memory here, so do not quote me precisely‑‑but I believe
that the width of the protective stand along the edge of the Manigotagan was another
area that was raised, including Manigotagan in Nopiming Park, so there is
obviously ramifications there beyond what this ministry could reach conclusions
on in and of itself.
The operating parameters and the funding
of the Citizens Advisory Committee, and actually the only one that I have had
much pressure on is when that advisory committee is going to be dealt with and
the appeal to it.
The process is that if there is an appeal
to a particular clause that we hold back in terms of making a decision on this
panel until we have dealt with the appeal.
Ms. Cerilli: The other concern in this area is with the
effluent from the mill and its effect on the reserve, particularly. I would ask the minister, is that mill in
violation of its effluent licence regulation, and what kind of readings have
there been with respect to the water quality that Sagkeeng, the reserve there,
is utilizing?
Mr. Cummings: The mill has not been historically out of
compliance with the licence or with its effluent standards, but the member
would be aware that those standards have been changed.
They are presently in the process of
licensing with the province and that licensing is in regard to the upgrade of
their mill. Part of the upgrade will be
to change their effluent handling and capability so that they will be able to
meet the new standards.
Ms. Cerilli: How would the water quality for the
populations in that area drawing from the Winnipeg River compare with the city
of
Mr. Cummings: I am told that we have fairly good monitoring
records and that the best of our recollection is that this water is equal to
the city of
I suppose I could say, tongue in cheek,
however, as I said off the record, it might depend what you are referring to
when you talk about
Ms.Cerilli: Just to clarify, I am talking about drinking
water, and I am talking about the quality of the drinking water. How is the department dealing with claims
then that there are contaminants in the water that are affecting the health of
the reserve?
Mr. Cummings: My response was that the drinking water
quality is as good as the city of
Federal Health and Welfare are monitoring,
and if there is something about that water that I am unaware of‑‑but
it is federal Health and Welfare that is doing the monitoring at the
reserve. There is no doubt that the
plant needs to meet the new standards.
That is part of their application for upgrade, but I have not been told
of any outstanding concerns.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, another area of great concern, and
maybe I should not have left this one so long, but the fact that we have Repap
operating without an environment licence currently, I think, is not a good
precedent to be setting. It is a huge
problem, and it makes one wonder of the seriousness with which the government
takes the issuing of an environment licence.
So I would ask the minister to explain how we can have this size of an
operation operating without a proper environment licence.
Mr. Cummings: First of all, the operation was not required
to be licensed until the act came into place.
In fact, they are in the process of working on applications for
licensing in the forestry area.
* (1530)
The mill is fully licensed. One should not overlook the fact that this is
a long‑standing mill and cutting area that has been brought further under
compliance under this government than it was ever envisaged before. The forestry cutting, the forestry licences
are up‑to‑date and they are being managed. The overall forest management and licence
under The Environment Act is presently being fulfilled in terms of coming
forward for final licensing.
This mill did not expand or has not
expanded in the way that we had originally anticipated when the agreement with
Repap was originally struck. In fact,
they have every right and are properly licensed to operate as they are and are
showing good progress towards preparing themselves for an Environment Act
application.
Ms. Cerilli: It has been explained to me or, as I
understand it, that it has only been since January '93 that the cut area has
had its prior licence expire, that the cutting area prior had been licensed and
now that is expired. Can the minister
explain that?
Mr. Cummings: The licence that has expired is the
Department of Natural Resources licence, and I am told that even though this
forestry process never was required to have an environment licence, they are
now in a position to receive one very shortly.
Ms. Cerilli: So are there public hearings planned for
that? Can the minister outline what the
environmental considerations that are being looked at are for the licence?
Mr. Cummings: There have been a number of public meetings
that have taken place. All of the
information that the member may be looking for is on the public registry. That information has been there for some time
I believe for any questions or concerns that may be around it.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the issues that is of concern is how the
size of the buffers was arrived at. Does
the minister have any information about what considerations were made in
arriving at the 100‑metre dimension for the buffers?
Mr. Cummings: As I recall, the relevant information
regarding the buffers was all discussed at the commission. I can recall some discussion as to whether
this was an excessive width or a reasonable width, but the debate, as I
understand it, was carried out at the commission and concerns on both sides
were aired. We then, through our Environment
people and with receiving advice from forestry management, made a decision.
Now, another question that was raised, and
I am not sure if it is addressed on the licence or not, but the fact is that
the concern about whether or not you have wildfires or potential for areas to
get burned out, believe it or not, does reflect on these buffer zones. There are management personnel who believe
that, at the very least, the deadfall should be managed and removed from these
buffer zones or they could become a perfect opportunity for wildfires to move
in a long and a very rapid manner, and then lose not only the stand that is
there but lose the protection that it provides to the river. The hundred metres that we are using, I am
told, is a lot greater than some other jurisdictions. In fact, it appears that it is about four
times greater than some.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other areas of concern with the
Endangered Spaces Campaign and the target of 12 percent is that all of the
proposed sites for the 12 percent protection are going to be protected until
the designations are made. Is that
happening right now in the Repap cut area?
Are all of those areas being protected or left alone from cutting and
will that happen in the future?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, I am not sure that I have
the information to answer that question.
That would be primarily managed by Natural Resources, but it is to my
understanding that this province is well along in getting a number of its areas
recognized, and I suspect that the concern that the member is raising has been
answered.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other areas of concern is related
to something we were discussing the other day in terms of the sewage lagoons in
the province. One of the large concerns
with the siting of the Ducks Unlimited office complex in the Oak Hammock Marsh
was that the consideration, the effects, the sewage has not been dealt with
properly or even considered adequately, and in fact that the licence is not
setting specific levels for the contaminants from the sewage. Can the minister explain, what are the
requirements and levels in the licence for the sewage effluent in Oak Hammock
Marsh?
Mr. Cummings: I do not know if we have a copy of the
licence here, but I think there is something that is continuously overlooked in
this debate, and it was raised by Mr. Gowdar and others, who tended to ignore
the fact that in the licence for the facility, even the materials that are kept
on site or more specifically any materials that might be discharged into the sewage
lagoon other than human effluent is very much regulated, and that mitigates
against some of the other toxic substances that might be the concern in a
normal operating regime, even having a possibility of getting into the lagoon
system.
We may have some other information here
that I can add, but this is a three‑cell system and it is our belief that
the regulatory regime that is in place will make certain that we do not have
the kind of discharges that people are attempting to show as being harmful, because
it certainly is the intention that any kind of discharge that would be harmful
to the biota in the area would not be allowed.
We do not have the specific limits with us but we can certainly make
sure you get them.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the licence specify levels for things
like phosphate, nitrate ammonia, sulfide, heavy metals?
Mr. Cummings: I have some information here that the licence
prescribes limits on organic and bacteriological quality of the effluent
consistent with all other lagoons in the province, prescribes an additional
limit on the sodium content to protect plant life in the vicinity of the
discharge point, prohibits laboratory waste from the lagoon system and
prohibits a spring discharge of effluent which would normally be allowed in other
operations. So those are some of the
additional things, including the establishment of a third cell that would be
used to protect the area.
* (1540)
Ms. Cerilli: Would the minister not agree that there
should be more concern for some of the contaminants that will be in the sewage
because of the nature of the marsh, some of the contaminants that I just
listed?
Mr. Cummings: I think what is going unsaid is that all of
the parameters of what we expect to find in the effluent are controlled. There is not much point writing something
into a licence to control something that is not expected to be there.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the other areas that I wanted to ask
about is the licensing of livestock operations.
I would ask the minister: What
would have to happen to bring the licensing of these operations under The
Environment Act?
Mr. Cummings: As we have discussed before, there is a lot
of work going on right now to assist in the implementation of the farm practices
act and the regulations attached to that, and there would be‑‑some
regulatory amendments is basically all it would take.
The second part of that, of course, is
that I believe there is some general agreement between the hog industry, for
example, that the larger lagoons would probably be better served if they were
more closely regulated. There is a great
deal of, well, to put it bluntly, fear and loathing of hog lagoons out there in
the area where they are being established.
By and large, there is no reason why they
could not be included in more of a regulatory regime, not because the good
operations are not being properly constructed or being properly managed, but
because the communities in which they are located are seeking assurances. At the same time, the hog industry is saying
they have nothing to be ashamed of, that they are operating properly, and those
who are not should be. Therefore, there
have been some ongoing discussions with the industry in this respect.
Ms. Cerilli: What is happening in the area of the siting
of the facility with the virology lab for biomedical waste? Are we going to have a centralized facility
in
Mr. Cummings: The virology lab has a licence and can
operate within the parameters of that licence if the construction is ever
completed. I have every reason to
believe it will be.
Secondly, whether or not biomedical waste
is‑‑and I think one has to separate that from the virology lab,
because we are not talking about the removal of anything from the site, as I
recall. Biomedical waste is not yet
classified here as a hazardous waste, but we are working on a number of
initiatives in the regulatory regime and in the management of the waste to make
sure that we stay within compliance as standards change.
Ms. Cerilli: Was there not a proposal that that facility
would have a biomedical waste‑‑I do not know if it was going to be
an incinerator or a disposal‑‑facility that would centralize all of
the biomedical waste from the hospitals in the city?
Mr. Cummings: At this point, any discussions I am aware of
would be dealing with its own waste.
There have certainly been ideas thrown around of various types, but
their incinerator that they would have onsite today would‑‑the
plans that are in place today would only be related to the handling of any
waste that they might produce internally.
Ms. Cerilli: I would also like to ask for some kind of
indication of what is happening with the management plan to deal with the
Now, there is a lot of concern that we
have had the licence for the go‑ahead in
Mr. Cummings: The jurisdiction with the biggest
responsibility in this area is the government of
I would be quite happy if
I had arranged for a meeting to be held in
February at Chief Mandamin's office at
We have had discussions with the federal
Minister of Environment, the federal Minister of Indian and Native Affairs, and
we are continuing to bring them into the process. But if the Province of Ontario continues to
stonewall, then we have reached a situation where I have to bring into question
my agreement not to voluntarily not implement the sensitive‑area regs on
our side of the Manitoba provincial border.
We agreed, at the request of Chief Mandamin, not to do that.
* (1550)
I have reserved the right to implement
rather quickly, but the overall management plan for the area is still our
goal. We believe that Premier Rae
supports that goal, and we are hoping the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer)
and others may pick up the phone and convince him it would be the right thing
to do for the people of
I would only ask my critics, I am not sure
how you intend to manage the time associated with these Estimates, I have
people here who could assist us with going over the Sustainable Development
Fund. If you wish to deal with that, let
me know and we will ask them to join us.
I presume you would like to finish this area of questioning first,
however.
Ms. Cerilli: I have a couple of more questions in this
area.
With respect to
Has the minister any letter that he could
show that there was an appeal made on behalf of
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister willing to forward a copy of
that, or has he made that public?
Mr. Cummings: We made our objections known to the
If we had a management plan in place, they
could well look at some of the areas of development that they have been
pressing on. They seem to be afraid to
come to the table because they believe that will impede their ability to
develop the area.
The native bands and the people from
Kenora are pushing for job opportunities, and the
I cannot help but express a high degree of
frustration with how things have gone in the last six months but, nevertheless,
we are continuing to push and hopefully embarrass them into providing more of
the kind of protection that we need.
The second issue that does not get
discussed very much, however, is the issue of the native bands, their
sovereignty, their right to do what they believe is appropriate on their own
lands, and that leads to some considerable debate obviously.
That led the city and the federal
government and the province to draw up an agreement to compensate or reimburse
one of the bands for lost opportunity if they were to protect the shoreline.
That agreement is now in limbo because the
band in question has not lived up to its share of the agreement. So, to some degree, the City of
If people will sit down and discuss a
management plan, I do not think there will be a lot of broad disagreement on
the parameters that might be in that management plan, but of recent months we
have found a reluctance to sit down.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, there are a number of issues here. Describe for us more what you have done when
you talk about poking and prodding the government of
Mr. Cummings: This has been elevated to the level of the
Premiers to start off with. Premier
Filmon raised this on, I believe, two separate occasions and through phone
calls with Premier Rae. Now that is about
as high a level of importance as an issue can be attributed.
In terms of my participation and the
Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ernst), we have had ongoing meetings starting
with the bureaucracy, some three and a half years ago, began filling in details
on what would be the appropriate management plan. I have met with Jim Bradley. I have met with Ruth Grier on several
occasions and attempted to meet with the new Minister of Environment, but he is
also the Minister of Mines and Natural Resources and does not particularly want
to talk about environmental protection in an area that he sees as part of the
green belt for development in the province of Ontario. Mr. Wildman and I have not been able to sit
down directly and discuss this.
I made a pilgrimage to the Queen's Park,
if you will, to talk to the Minister of Environment and convince them that they
needed to deal with this seriously, that the people on this side of the border
had a right to have input into a management plan, that we had a right to be
heard in terms of water quality. I
frankly felt that I was making some considerable headway with Minister Grier,
but she was moved over to Health about a week later.
The follow‑up to that has been less
than satisfactory, because it has been couched in the terms that I described
earlier, where
Ms. Cerilli: Well, the minister can be assured, for what
it is worth, that I will try as well again to draw from some of the information
put on the Hansard in this discussion. I
also used a little bit of time on my Christmas holidays to bring some
information there to the minister in
I guess I am concerned too with the
minister's response to this. The
minister seems to have a different explanation, and I have not heard before the
explanation that
* (1600)
Is there any kind of federal involvement
that we could ask for here? The other
areas I would ask about, but I do not want to dwell on this anymore either
because I want to move on, is the whole issue of the minister informing
Manitobans of the hearing that was held in Kenora, if he is now saying that in
fact they did know about the proposed exploratory mining, why that was not done
and if they in fact had contacted them in enough time, that we could have had
Manitobans present there. I think that
that would have had some influence as well.
Mr. Cummings: What the member is talking about is the kind
of stuff that I take out of my hog barn and spread in my fields.
We can lob over the occasional hand
grenade but, until the people in downtown
Ms. Cerilli: Well, again, I would just think then that
there are a number of strategies. If that
is the way minister thinks this is being dealt with, there are a number of
strategies that he could have been using to impress the people in
Mr. Cummings: Well, I hope the member realizes that I am
starting to get a little short of patience with the
Until they recognize the rights of the
people on this side of the border to clean drinking water, I have to say, I do
not have a lot of respect for their environmental policies.
Ms. Cerilli: Way to go.
What a performance.
I would be remiss, I think, if I did not
ask some questions about the cleanup of the Domtar contaminated site in
Radisson. There has been a lot of progress made, so it seems, with siting the
cleanup equipment.
One concern that I have had is that the
commitment for air monitoring has not been lived up to to the extent that we
thought it would and the extent that the commitment was made. There was supposed to have been air
monitoring completed all during the excavation of the soil for the trial and
that information was supposed to be made available to myself and residents in
the area.
So the main question I have on this topic
is: Why was that air monitoring not
completed so that the air quality tests could have been part of the
consideration for the effects of doing the mitigation?
Mr. Cummings: The monitoring that would logically occur is
more important during times of activity on the site and during warm
weather. I would think that, when we get
the equipment here and operations begin, we will have monitoring capability to
make sure that this is not an ongoing concern.
The fact is, and I would assume at the
public meeting that occurred that assurances were given and made clear, I hope,
that in bringing on site a piece of equipment such as we are talking about
bringing there, there will be considerable activity. There will be some disruption of the soil
which will lead to the release of fumes just the same as there is around any
plant that might have been operating in a very benign way. Smell is very sensitive, and we will have to
be cognizant of the concerns of the community when we bring the equipment in
there.
As I understand it, and I am not sure, but
the member might have been at the meeting where Mr. Wotton explained the type
of equipment and what would occur. She,
perhaps, has had a more recent briefing than I have in that respect. My knowledge of the equipment is generic
inasmuch as we know that we are going to have to move dirt, and we are going to
end up heating it in terms of the process that is going to be on site. We are going to have the agreement of the
community that this is an acceptable way of dealing with it, and we are going
to have to be able to provide them with some satisfaction that we are not
putting their health at risk during that process.
I think all of those can be
accomplished. There will be some
considerable activity around there if they bring the equipment in as they
intend to.
Ms. Cerilli: I think what was expected was that
information would have been at the public meeting that the minister referenced. I think it would have been appropriate even
though it was winter and you might not have had as much odour, the
contamination that would have been airborne from the excavation of the soil
would still have been there. So I think
that we want to have full disclosure of what the results are from toxins in the
air, from the soil excavation. I would
just ask for a commitment from the minister that that information will be
forthcoming and to indicate now if all of the equipment for air monitoring is
in place.
So two things: A commitment to make it public on an ongoing
basis throughout the summer, and that now when they are doing the work there,
is the air quality monitoring equipment in place?
Mr. Cummings: I cannot answer at this moment whether or not
the equipment is in place today, but certainly will give the commitment that
that will be done, and that the interests of the community will be protected in
terms of making sure that we have monitoring there to assure them that, if
levels are detected, they can be adequately explained and given assurances as
to what is being found in the air.
Ms. Cerilli: Well, I do not know if it was in the work
order that this air quality testing would have gone on during the trial of
excavating soil. Is the minister saying
that did not happen, that the air quality was not done at all during the
excavation of the trial period?
Mr. Cummings: Is the member asking about when the 10
truckloads or so were excavated from this site or when they were processed in
B.C.? Because it is my view that when
the excavation occurs and the processing is occurring at the same time, that is
when we are going to have concerns regarding emissions. You do not get those concerns during the
winter. You largely would not get them
when the soil is not being disturbed.
There was a time when the surface of the
area was being worked, disced and other activities on it, when some of the
sludge was being pumped out of various areas, that there was going to be a lot
of emissions. We have now moved into the
next stage which will be the processing of the dirt. It will be monitored and we will give the
community the answers as to what is occurring.
I am told that, in fact, monitoring did
occur during the B.C. test, but I do not think I have the information here.
Ms. Cerilli: I do not want to spend much longer on this, I
would just appreciate an answer. Can I
have the information directly, both of the tests that have been done? And it is not the concern about odour. We are concerned about what is in the air,
what chemicals are in the air. So I
would appreciate just getting all of that information sent to my office
including anything that was done already and upcoming monitoring over the
summer.
* (1610)
Mr. Cummings: All of the information we have is and will be
public. I have to indicate that I am
quite prepared to keep the rhetoric down in this area, but I think we need a
commitment all of the way around that that is what is going to occur, because
the communications with the community has to be direct as well.
I am not going to put myself in a position
where the communications between the department and community is filtered
through my opposition critic's office.
We have to have complete trust all of the way around, and the only way that
I can understand that trust will be that everything will be open to question,
every piece of information will be available, and we will get the community as
up to date and make sure that our operations are as responsive to any questions
as possible.
Yes, we will provide you with all of the
information that we have. If there are
blanks in that information, for any reason‑‑I did not mean to imply
that the smell was the problem, but the smell becomes the concern. The community, when they smell something in
the air, will ask questions about what is there; and what is actually there
creates the factual data upon which decisions will be made.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Chairperson, in the
Chair)
The reason I emphasize this so much is
that something that surprised me greatly when I came to this office is that the
human senses are sometimes much more sensitive than what the testing devices
may be able to accommodate, taste being an example, that you can taste certain
petroleum products below a level when they can actually even be tested. I suspect that somewhat the same thing occurs
in the air monitoring, so when I indicated that when there is a smell in the
air, I was not meaning that the smell was inoffensive, it is whatever else
might be there.
Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify on this point, I think it is
important for this minister to admit that it was this critic that asked for the
department to inform the residents directly of what was happening. Initially, there was not any
information. Even now, the way the
information is flowing, it is not sure that it is getting to the entire
residents' group, but I will move on to another area.
Before we leave the licensing area, I
think it is from the annual report where I have the number of licences that
have been issued since 1988 under the new act.
The only question that I would have is:
How many denials of requests for public hearings have been also issued,
both in that same time period, but even more just within the last year?
Mr. Cummings: We do not have the numbers here. I am not sure that they are broken down in
that exact manner, but the feeling is that there might have been a total of 10
that we would not have held public hearings as a result of a request for public
hearings in the last five years, since 1988.
So that is a pretty small number.
Very often what happens when there is a
request for a hearing as well is that the departmental director will call for
additional meetings to make sure that the concerns are aired and then may well,
on the basis of those additional meetings, decide that the concerns have been
answered and that public hearings need not be recommended.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Rose): 2.(b) Environmental
Management (1) Salaries $3,355,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$1,031,800‑‑pass.
Item 2.(c) Legislation and
Intergovernmental Affairs (1) Salaries $141,400‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $90,300‑‑pass.
Item 2.(d) Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation.
Ms. Cerilli: What is the schedule for the construction to
begin with the facility for the corporation?
Mr. Cummings: The soil mediation process will be in place
by July. Construction around that is not
significant, but there will be some construction associated with that. As to a definite construction date on the balance
of the facility, I cannot provide one at this point because we are in
discussions with potential investors, and the ultimate start‑up date, I
would expect, would be next spring. We
will all see some work this fall but, if you are talking about further
development of services, I cannot give you a correct date. It would only be speculation.
Mrs. Carstairs: Yes, I just have a few questions in this
area. What amount of government commitment, if any, has to go into this
project?
Mr. Cummings: I am sorry?
Mrs. Carstairs: How much government money has to go into this
project?
Mr. Cummings: Since the inception of Manitoba Hazardous
Waste Management Corporation, the
Let me just take 30 seconds and embellish
on this a little bit. One of the things
that has always been of some disagreement between various people who have
looked at this operation, and that is whether or not there is value attached to
the site, we know there is some; whether or not there is value attached to the
knowledge and the good name of the community and the corporation as they
combine together under the agreement, we know there is some. In fact, I would say there is quite a bit of
value attached for that, and we know that there is quite a bit of value
attached to the licence itself. So how
those values are ultimately recognized in the long run will be subject for some
discussion and further reporting to the public.
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister made the statement that the
balance of the construction schedule, I assumed he meant, would depend on
discussions with investors. What kind of
investors? He has already implied that
there would be little financial investment. So what kind of investors is he
referring to here?
Mr. Cummings: We have received presentations and we will
continue to have discussions with highly qualified operational companies in the
Hazardous Waste Management field with considerable expertise and knowledge. I did not mean to imply when I said that
additional investment would be minimal.
I guess it depends on a person's idea of minimal. The total value of this operation when it is
up and going may well be $50 million.
How much of that will be taxpayers'
dollars, I would have to reserve speculation on because part of that revolves
around how much recognition there is for the value of what we have today, which
has cost us $13 million to develop. I
suspect all of those dollars will be recognized down the road, but that will
depend on the type of company that comes forward and the type of presentations
that they will make. The fact is that
the soil remediation process that is being embarked on out there right now was
not something that was even necessarily contemplated as being an important part
of this operation, but there is, in the short term, going to be a great deal of
activity around that because there is a lot of contaminated soil on various
locations, particularly within the city of Winnipeg, gasoline stations
particularly, a lot of which are no longer being used and cannot be developed
until some of those soils are removed and remediated.
* (1620)
So that is the type of thing. It is evolving very quickly, and to say
precisely how it will evolve, I think, would be getting a little bit of the
cart ahead of the horse.
The principle I want to make sure we are
not in any way leaving an impression with the public that we might be departing
from is that the government has given its commitment to maintain the ownership
of the dirt and maintain a significant and important operating presence within
any structure that we would have over the next few years.
An example is that the government is
committed to $700,000 through the Hazardous Waste Corp. I should say that it is through loan
authority to the Hazardous Waste Corp. that this commitment has been made. The Hazardous Waste Corp. has committed
itself to a $700,000 engineering design.
It is ongoing right now. That is
the first step towards actually starting to see some construction.
Mrs. Carstairs: Maybe I am missing something, but I thought
the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation was at the present time 100
percent wholly provincial owned, in other words, provincial government owned. Is that not correct?
Mr. Cummings: That is correct, but it is a Crown and the
government extends loan authority to the Crowns. Ultimately, it was the decision of the board
of directors that they would invest in the $700,000 for this engineering design
within the loan authority that they received.
It should be pointed out that governments
do not just automatically extend loan authority. There have been too many examples in the
history of this province where that has occurred, and five or six years down
the road, governments have found loan authority being used that has been
granted that they had forgotten was there.
All of a sudden, the debt had accrued inadvertently to the province.
We have taken a much tighter grip on that,
as an administration, to make sure that none of our Crowns rise up and surprise
us.
Mrs. Carstairs: I do not know of other Crowns which have
private investors, yet that seems to be what the minister is saying. I do not want to put words in the minister's
mouth; I just want to understand what is happening here.
He keeps talking about investors and I
assume that he is talking about waste management specialists. If they are going to invest, are they going
to own a percentage of this Crown?
Mr. Cummings: We do not, at this point, have any private
dollars invested in the Hazardous Waste Corp.
We are seeking private‑sector partners. The structure of how that partnership may
evolve, it may be a subsidiary. There
are lots of different models that this could follow.
We believe it is in the best interests, at
this point, to make sure that we acquire as much as we can some risk dollars
from the private sector so that they will also bring, through the company,
whatever form that company may take down the road, the availability of markets
and processes that the corporation may not have on its own today.
Also, some of the risk dollars that could
well be involved would mean that rather than the Province of Manitoba and the
taxpayers being the only ones who have dollars at risk that there would be some
private sector involvement as well.
Let me hasten to add that I am not in
anyway advocating that some sort of a cost‑plus arrangement be made. I am talking about a genuine search for high‑quality
investors who would be willing to come in as part of‑‑and I
emphasize the words part of‑‑because the province will not be
backing away from its commitment. That
is the commitment that really has made the community of Montcalm comfortable
with our being there, and we will not do anything to jeopardize that
confidence.
Mrs. Carstairs: So if I can summarize, and then the minister
can correct my summary. It is my
understanding that they are looking for private investors, but they are looking
for private investors who would not own a share of the Hazardous Waste
Management Corporation but would do joint ventures in the area of waste
management with the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.
Mr. Cummings: That would be a fair summation. That also would be a possible or even a
likely scenario, yes.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Rose): 2.(d) Manitoba Hazardous Waste Corporation $3
million.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Chairperson, perhaps the minister
can tell me whether this ground has already been covered, but I am wondering whether
the question has been asked about the government's intentions with respect to
the Waste Management Corporation and its continued existence as a Crown
corporation?
Mr. Cummings: The question has not been asked in exactly
that manner, but as I tried to indicate a moment ago, the province is not going
to walk away from any entity that develops at the
This will be a situation where the
government's guarantee, first of all, is in place. Secondly, the involvement of the public
investment, first of all, and the government, through its Crown agency, will be
continued so that the community has the satisfaction of knowing that they are
not dealing simply with a private entity, but they are dealing with a larger
entity which is the government of Manitoba which has provided the guarantee on
the site, the long‑term liability on the site and has continued to keep
its investment in the corporation.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
What we are looking for, as I have tried
to explain, without a specific model in hand we have inquired and have received
inquiries about investment and development opportunities that would be
partnership arrangements with private sector.
As I said before the member asked his question, the value of what the
I happen to think that it is all there in
the licence, in the site, in the good will in the community and in the high
standard that the corporation has set for itself and its operations, but that
will be part of any discussions when we look at whether or not we can bring in
private investment dollars as well.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, can the minister indicate
whether there is any existing waste corporation, public or private, that is
currently profitable in Canada‑‑hazardous waste, I should add, not
just waste disposal but hazardous waste?
Mr. Cummings: It is my understanding that a number of them
are very profitable. In fact, the
margins are extremely high in some of the hazardous waste management operations
that we have reviewed in
Mr. Storie: I am not familiar enough with the kind of
materials these corporations might take.
Can the minister indicate whether they accept all types of materials or
are they specialized waste disposal operations?
The question is would they accept the
range of materials that we would expect a publicly owned provincial hazardous
waste management corporation to accept, in other words, virtually all of the
different types of waste that we might generate?
Mr. Cummings: The member raises a legitimate question. It will take a couple of minutes to answer
it, because if he envisages a public corporation that says it will take every
waste that is produced in this province and treat it here, then what you would
have is a situation where particular waste streams might be subsidizing each
other, because there will undoubtedly be found certain products that will be
very costly to treat here, but would be very expensive to have the material‑‑but
low volume‑‑and very expensive to have the equipment or the
technology to do it.
* (1630)
This is why the Manitoba Hazardous Waste
Corporation has evolved in some of its thinking, I believe, because‑‑and
this may well be a debate for our annual report rather than as part of the
Environment debates‑‑but the fact is that materials do flow out of
this province today. I would anticipate
that any investor here or any co‑investor, in conjunction with the
corporation or even if the corporation were operating on its own as a fully
owned provincial Crown, that they would not handle every waste stream, every
bit of waste that was offered to them.
So the bottom‑line answer to the question is that there will
likely be some portion of the
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, I guess that is my point
and that is the concern I have with the direction the government is taking
generally. Certainly, I would expect
that specific types of hazardous waste disposal can be very profitable. I would assume that in an economy as small as
ours, probably regionally if you looked at the Prairies, there are going to be
all types of hazardous wastes which cannot be economically disposed of by an
individual corporation. I would assume
that all kinds of mechanisms could develop, that you might have some sort of
reciprocal agreement with differing jurisdictions to treat different kinds of
wastes.
My concern though is that if the province
absolves itself of some sort of overarching responsibility, and we leave
particular types of waste to be dealt with privately, then what we are going to
see is the continuation of what is an existing practice in Manitoba, to some
extent perhaps and other jurisdictions, of certain types of waste finding their
way into drums at the bottom of the river and that kind of disposal technique. How is the minister going to assure that does
not happen?
Mr. Cummings: I believe that the appropriate approach that
can be used to deal with the question that the member raises is that the
corporation will likely play a very significant role as a broker as well as
managing and treating the wastes for which the volume and the profit stream are
appropriate. That seems to me to be
another rather intriguing aspect of what the corporation can do beyond
establishing the facility and the type of processes for what are the main hazardous
waste streams in this area. They may
also have a very significant role in finding a home for some of the others that
they cannot today treat.
The member is quite correct. I agree with his approach, I think, or he
agrees with mine, that when we look at Saskatchewan, for example, there is a
great deal of affinity between these two provinces in terms of what the market
might be, because Saskatchewan does not have a treatment capacity, the Alberta
borders are still closed, and I think it makes eminent good sense that there
may be some trade‑offs between two prairie provinces, but we are very
cognizant of the fact that we have to look after our own responsibilities first
and some of these other export opportunities would likely follow subsequently.
Mr. Storie: Madam Chairperson, one final question‑‑given
what I thought was a rather sensible reply to my question and an
acknowledgement that there is going to be some form of hazardous waste
corporation in existence, some public entity, the question is: Why would then one hive off what could be the
most profitable hazardous waste management stream. Why would you not, as an existing monopoly,
retain the right to dispose of that waste that might be profitable to support
other enterprises of the corporation, other activities?
Mr. Cummings: The intention is not to hive off the
profitable and the nonprofitable, nor is it an intention to deal in a
monopolistic situation. There are other
operators within the province, but it seems to me that the corporation has
shown that because of its expertise and the base that it has established for
itself that it is and will be able to work most competitively in the market and
that the brokering of some of the other less profitable lines will not be left
to become a dark hole, if you will, to consume profits of the corporation. They will have to deal with all of the waste
streams on at least a reasonable profit basis.
Madam Chairperson: 2.(d) Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management
Corporation $3,000,000‑‑pass.
2.(e) Joint Environmental Assessment
Review (1) Salaries $54,600.
Mrs. Carstairs: I note, Madam Chairperson, that the Joint
Environmental Assessment Review budget has been reduced primarily because of
the discontinuance of the Conawapa hydroelectric joint environmental assessment
review project. Was there any
consideration given to using that money to do a joint environmental assessment
review with respect to the
Mr. Cummings: First of all, this area is fully cost
recoverable. So it can rise and fall
according to the demands that are there.
The dollars shown here as a reduction are not savings that would accrue
to anywhere else in the department. They are recoverable dollars from the areas
that we were working with, and I have explained several times during this
process of why it is not my decision as to whether or not in the long run there
will be a federal process or any semblance of a joint process. That is a decision that the federal
authorities will make.
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister has in the past taken the
position, and I think correctly so, that if in fact there are going to be
federal panels and provincial panels that it might make some sense to have one
panel instead. The federal government has
already indicated clearly that if money for
Mr. Cummings: Unfortunately they will not give us an
answer, and even given the scenario that the Leader of the Liberal Party has
laid out, yes, what that scenario would lead to however is the making of a
decision, and that decision would be as a result of having put it through their
screening process. It still does not
mean that they would call a hearing, and they will not give us an answer about
what they will do until they are in a position to have to make a decision.
The difference with these joint panels
that we have had up and running is that the federal interest was obvious,
acknowledged, and probably exceeded ours particularly in Conawapa, I believe
that the federal‑‑north‑central, pardon me, particularly
there. Their interest exceeded ours, and
in fact we might have not even needed to be part of it, quite frankly. So that is the type of conundrum that I find
myself in. It is not an enviable
position, but I do not have any other option.
* (1640)
Mrs. Carstairs: I always become a little leery of politicians
who tell me they do not have an option or they do not have any choices. Politicians have gotten themselves in a great
deal of difficulty over those kinds of statements. The reality is, however, that the federal
government has given the provincial government some very serious questions
about the
In this he writes to Mr. McNaughton of
Manitoba Environment showing a review of the environmental impact statement of
That letter and that memo was drafted to
the minister on March 1, 1993. Knowing
what the minister knows about the position of the federal government, why has
he done two things: One, to proceed without demanding some explanation by the
proponent prior to public hearings, and secondly, why has he not tried to
involve, more actively, the federal government in a joint assessment panel?
Mr. Cummings: First of all, I have to hope that the member
will acknowledge that this is not necessarily the federal position. It is a
position put forward by some members of the various departments that are
involved.
Secondly‑‑well, I see my New
Democratic critic chooses to laugh, but I have learned through this process
that some things that seem somewhat absurd are, in fact, the way the courts
interpret their responsibilities. In
this particular situation, the questions then become couched in whether or not
they are, in fact, relevant to the project, or as it is being put forward. They
are relevant questions, but are they relevant in the context of the project as
it is being proposed? I guess you could
even extend that the next logical step which is, the commission may well look
at the volume of water that is in the river.
First of all, whether or not that is verifiable, the volume of
withdrawals, and then decide if any incremental impacts are of the nature that
would require these type of concerns to be answered.
I cannot answer those concerns directly,
but that is the process as it unfolds.
The other point is, that whether or not the federal jurisdiction
ultimately will even have a requirement for their concerns. The question of the concerns, the way the
system works is that they are all brought forward whether they are from our own
department, Natural Resources. They
could be from other departments if they had reasons to inquire about specific
aspects. The Department of Health, for
example, very often comments in these areas.
Nothing the federal staff have had to say addresses the question of
whether or not the federal authority has to have its jurisdictional questions
answered. So the thing just gets totally
mired down in process about whether the feds are in, about whether they have a
decision to make if they are in, and which question even comes first.
We can have all of these discussions, but
the bottom line is that we have indicated very clearly that nothing is going to
happen until both jurisdictional responsibilities are satisfied. The federal authorities
will have to satisfy theirs by simply making a decision on whether or not they
are in or out. That will be based on a
whole lot of things that we talked about before.
Mrs. Carstairs: Well, I wish it was quite that simple, but it
is not. I think the minister would
indicate that I have some knowledge about the Constitution. The Constitution very clearly says that
navigable waters are within federal jurisdiction. The
What we have watched with a variety of
environmental projects, whether it is Rafferty‑Alameda or whether it is
the
Surely, environmental prudence would
suggest to us that we not repeat that scenario in this province. If there is any likelihood that the federal
government at some point in time is going to get involved in this, either by
order of court or because of their own overt action, we should act in a way
that would assume that they are going to do that.
I would like to know what kind of
influence, what kind of pressure, if you will, this minister has used on the
federal government to have them involved in this, or is he perfectly willing to
accept their laissez faire attitude‑‑and I have no doubt that it is
a laissez faire attitude at this point‑‑and say, well, we are going
to proceed regardless.
Mr. Cummings: The point is is that we cannot order them to
be involved. The federal courts could,
but very often what has happened in terms of these disputes that have been
settled rather messily over the last number of years, where the federal
authority has been dragged into court, is generally as a result of them not
exercising their responsibility to make a decision in a given area of responsibility. Their decision might be that their
responsibility has been discharged in some way and they have no need to have a
hearing.
The very fact that they make the decision
and make it in a demonstrable manner that shows that they went through a conscious
process to make the decision, either yes or no, has been where as I understand
it a lot of the court cases have revolved.
Whether we want them in or not, under
today's law there is no trigger that has yet brought them in. The member points to the Navigable Waters
Act. First of all, let us assume that
something might occur in terms of construction.
No one knows if, in fact, there will be a structure added to the river,
which is what would likely bring them in.
The proposal, as I understand it, suggests
that additional water would be put through the
* (1650)
We have co‑operated with the federal
authorities and, as they have said on other occasions‑‑I point to
the
We could not proceed with any construction
there even though we were prepared to issue a licence after we had finished our
process because we had to wait until the federal authorities made a
decision. While the parallel is not
complete, I think this is very close to the same situation.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister table any correspondence
with the federal government in which he has put forward that scenario to the
federal government? We are examining a
particular project. We think there may
be an area of federal participation and interest. We want to know if the federal government is
going to involve themselves in some kind of review because, if they do, then we
would like to go via a joint assessment review process and then could he table
the response to such a letter?
Mr. Cummings: I did not sign a letter that says we want
federal authority to become involved, but what we have on an ongoing basis
every time any‑‑and there have been a number of other projects that
have not received this kind of attention obviously‑‑but every time
we have any of these overlapping responsibilities the federal authorities are
completely involved in the process. They
are notified. Their input is sought. All of those things are done and it is made
very clear that the federal decision‑making authority has to kick in so
that all of the environmental concerns can be answered.
Mrs. Carstairs: In this review of the environmental impact
statement and the commentary identifying a number of deficiencies, has the
minister asked the proponent to in fact address the issues which have been
raised by this review, and what replies has he gotten to the question so
raised?
Mr. Cummings: Madam Chairperson, it is not necessarily over
my signature that these reviews have to be asked for. In fact, the department runs the process and
the department has asked.
Mrs. Carstairs: If the department has asked, and I take the
minister's word for that, then can they give us replies to the issues that have
been raised in this document, for example, service related to deficiencies and
treatment of issues related to climate.
What was the response from the proponent with respect to those
particular issues raised with respect to the phenomenon of global warming?
Mr. Cummings: Questions have been asked, whether or not
they are in hand, or whether they would be part of the addendum that goes
forward to the hearing, I cannot answer, but I assume that is likely the
latter.
Nevertheless, the questions will have to
answered.
Mrs. Carstairs: The questions will have to be answered by the
proponent. How has the proponent been
made aware of these questions? Has the
provincial Department of Environment, on the advice of the federal Department
of Environment, given the proponent the impact statement and asked them to
address those issues?
Mr. Cummings: The exact mechanics, I am not sure I can
report to you, but the questions will have to be responded to, as I indicated
previously. Whether there was a signed
request or whether or not these were referred to the proponent to be answered
as part of their addendum, the precise answer I would be unable to give
you. We do not have the director here
who would have handled that, but the process is as I described.
Mrs. Carstairs: Has the Clean Environment Commission been
forwarded this particular memo from Mr. Smart?
Mr. Cummings: We would assume in the normal course of
communications that it has been, but none of us present here have signed a
letter that would have sent it there.
Mrs. Carstairs: Will the minister give me assurance that in
fact will be done, if it has not been done at the present moment?
Mr. Cummings: Yes.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(e) Joint Environmental Assessment
Review (1) Salaries $54,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $351,400‑‑pass.
2.(f) Alcohol Beverage Container Recycling
Program $600,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 31.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $13,110,200 for Environment, Environmental Management, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Item 3. Environmental Advisory Organizations
(a) Clean Environment Commission.
Ms. Cerilli: In this appropriation, why is there not any
indication of where the money comes from to pay for panelists? Do they get to
cover the costs? Is that included here?
Mr. Cummings: The cost of operating the commission is under
this appropriation. The reimbursement
for the per diem for panelists, if that was the concern, would be included in
here as well as part of operating expenditures.
The staff is very small so that pretty well covers it.
Ms. Cerilli: So what is the amount of money that goes out
to pay for the expenditures of the panelists?
Mr. Cummings: We are having a little trouble demonstrating
what it might be except that we believe that the remuneration would be about
$25,000 to the commissioners in total, plus they would receive their
expenditures travelling as a commission if they, for example, are on location
somewhere away from head office.
Ms. Cerilli: We can pass this section.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(a) Clean Environment Commission (1)
Salaries $229,800‑‑pass; 3.(a)(2) Other Expenditures $180,400‑‑pass.
(b)
Resolution 31.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $410,200 for Environment.
Ms. Cerilli: I have some questions under the Environmental
Council. [interjection]
Madam Chairperson: We did not.
There is no figure there. [interjection]
Ms. Cerilli: Our Estimates book has more detail. There are questions. Maybe I will just ask one question. It is already five o'clock.
Why is
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
Mr. Cummings: Is there leave to continue?
Mrs. Carstairs: No, there is not leave to continue for an
hour, but I would not mind continuing for five minutes. We could finish this particular section, and
then we would only have the institute left.
Is that reasonable?
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee? Is there leave to continue for five minutes
to complete item 3?
Ms. Cerilli: I can even ask some of these questions under
the salary. Let us do it that way, so
then the staff does not have to come back.
They do not have to come back for the institute, is that right?
[interjection] Okay. We can pass it, and
I will ask the questions.
Madam Chairperson: Item 3.(b)
Resolution 31.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $410,200 for Environment, Environmental Advisory
Organizations $410,200, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Madam
Deputy Speaker, I believe if you canvassed the House, you may find a
willingness to call it six o'clock, and I believe items would stand on the
Order Paper as they currently are.
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): Is it the will of the House to call it six
o'clock? [agreed]
The hour being 6 p.m., this House is
adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).