LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Monday, June 15, 1992
The
House met at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Mr.
Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable
member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), and it complies with the privileges and
practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the
petition read?
The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the Dutch elm disease control program
is of primary importance to the protection of the city's many elm trees; and
WHEREAS the Minister of Natural Resources
himself stated that, "It is vital that we continue our active fight
against Dutch elm disease in
WHEREAS, despite that verbal commitment, the
government of
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the
government of
As in duty bound your petitioners will ever
pray.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF
REPORTS
Hon.
Harry Enns (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review of the Expenditure
Estimates of the ministry of Natural Resources for the year '92‑93.
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I have a short statement for the House.
As honourable members of this House are aware,
last week's multilateral meeting on the Constitution ended without a consensus
on an overall package of constitutional amendments. However, ministers and
aboriginal leaders agreed that discussions should continue and that we should
stay in close touch.
We all undertook to review a proposal put
forward by
The equality principle remains sound, fair and
fully justifiable. No one can convince
me that our province is not or should not be equal to every other province in a
reformed Senate. It seems strange, to
say the least, that the federal government and
This week the Senate discussions will
continue, and we remain hopeful that an acceptable solution can be found. Although we did not resolve our differences
on Senate reform last week, we did take a very important step forward in
securing the federal government's support for strengthened wording for Section
36(2), the equalization provision. We
have argued consistently that better protection for equalization is necessary
to sustain essential services and to counterbalance proposals for devolution.
The
I should add that I have distributed to the
Leaders of the Official Opposition and the Second Opposition (Mrs. Carstairs) copies
of an unofficial rolling draft status report on the discussions as released by
Mr. Clark last Thursday. Along with that
document is a short paper on possible elements of a political accord. Both documents are for reference only. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
* (1335)
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): I would just like to briefly
respond to the minister's statement. I
would like to thank him for the statement and the copy of the rolling draft that
the minister of national unity presented to the participants.
Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the statement
of the Constitutional Affairs minister on the basis of the
Number one, there was a strong desire for
aboriginal constitutional reform in a reform Constitution in
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the very major priority
of Manitobans in the public hearings and in the report was for the strong national
government with the ability to redistribute wealth from regions to regions and
from individuals in our great country. There has been some progress made in the
equalization, and we certainly noted that in the rolling draft that we had
received a couple of weeks ago, but there are a number of other issues remaining
in the strong national government.
Medicare and post‑secondary education were the programs that most
Manitobans felt were the No. 1 and 2 priorities within the strong national program.
I note that there is no specific judicable
wording dealing with EPF and the ability to maintain and enhance our national health
care programs and our national post‑secondary programs in this
country. We supported the Premier (Mr.
Filmon) on March 2, when he said he would not support the federal government
becoming a post office box of
In the area of institutional reform, Mr.
Speaker, in the Senate, we have read about the four or five proposals that we understand
are now before the table. We do not see
any of those proposals dealing with the alienation that was presented by 30 Manitobans,
I think, when they supported the Triple‑E Senate, the alienation of
decisions like the CF‑18. We see
very little in the area of what can really happen in dealing with that alienation. I would ask the government to keep a very
open mind on some of these issues. The
National Energy Program for
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in these final
days or weeks or months‑‑we do not know which‑‑we would
ask the government to make the issue of medicare and post‑secondary
education the issue of a strong, national government, the preeminent priority
of the
* (1340)
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I have to say that I am deeply disturbed by the rolling draft which I
received just minutes ago, because now we do have some texts; now we do have
some agreements, it would appear. Maybe our Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae)
stood on his head a thousand times to say, no, no, no, but it would appear very
clearly from these rolling texts that we do have drafts.
In every single case, they mirror so much of
what were fundamental objections by the people of this province and this country
to the Meech Lake Accord, whether it is the offloading of federal powers in
immigration, in housing, in tourism, in labour market training, in mining, in
forestry. We are not going to have a
checkerboard, because a checkerboard implies that there are only going to be
two colours on the board. We are going
to have a Rubik's Cube in terms of what our nation is going to look like if we
allow the kind of opting‑out provisions and province‑by‑province
negotiation with program after program, which is afforded in this particular
text.
Mr. Speaker, the people of
The last two meetings‑‑or the one
that the minister has just come from and the one that seems to be anticipated
for later this week will be back discussing Senate reform, but they will not be
discussing these other most fundamental difficulties that the Canadian people
have with a changed Constitution.
The minister, in his own remarks, indicated
that they had achieved some commitment on equalization payments. Well, let us look at what it is, according to
this rolling text. It should be amended
to add a commitment to ensure the provision of reasonable comparable economic
infrastructure of a national nature‑‑and no guarantee that it
will. The Constitution should commit the
federal government to consultation‑‑consultation, but absolutely no
guarantee that they have to do it.
As I go through this text, I just bear in mind
what my 23‑year‑old said to me last night on the phone when we were
talking about all the newspaper stories.
My daughter went to the United States to do her undergraduate work and
is now trying to make up her mind where to do her doctorate, whether in the
United States or in
When I read this document, this is not the
country that I love, Mr. Speaker.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 101‑The Statute Law Amendment
Act, 1992
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the
honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness), that Bill 101, The Statute Law
Amendment Act, 1992 (Loi de 1992 modifiant diverses dispositions legislatives),
be introduced and that the same be now received and read a first time.
Motion
agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr.
Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon,
from the Ecole Glenwood, sixteen Grade 6 students. They are under the direction
of Mr. Mireault. This school is located
in the constituency of the honourable member for St. Vital (Mrs. Render).
Also, from the
On behalf of all honourable members, I would
like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Free Trade Agreement
Impact on Manufacturing Industry
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in May of 1988,
we had 65,000 manufacturing jobs in
In May of 1992, the most recent statistics
available to us, there are presently 51,000 Manitobans working in
manufacturing, a decline of 14,000 good‑paying jobs in our province and
in our economy, a decline of 21 percent in manufacturing jobs in this province. Every day we get another small story‑‑Northern
Telecom on Thursday, Nabisco last week‑‑of manufacturing jobs being
lost in this province and to the people of this province.
The Premier has stated that they had an
empirical study about how many jobs we would receive under free trade with the
I would ask the Premier: Why have we declined by 21 percent in one of
the most vital industries we have in this province for the opportunity of
people in this province?
* (1345)
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, this question is very similar
to ones that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) has asked before in terms
of recognizing the impact of other factors in terms of our exports and our
trading relationship. One need look no
further than what is happening in other provinces and the impact of a nation‑wide
and, in many cases, world‑wide recession, looking at the value of the
Canadian dollar over the last several months and years and several other
factors that have impacted in terms of our trade relationship.
Even keeping that in mind, if you look at the
raw dollars, Mr. Speaker, you will realize that from '88 to 1992, the exports of
When he points to the manufacturing sector, in
1992 we will have the highest private investment in the manufacturing sector of
any province in all of
So, clearly, when you talk about free trade,
when you talk about that issue, once you would recognize, there are many issues,
many aspects of that and many things that affect the final numbers, Mr. Speaker.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Government Withdrawal
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would have
thought the Premier (Mr. Filmon), as Chair of the Economic Committee of Cabinet‑‑that
$800,000 secretariat that was supposed to give us some impact study of what was
going on our economy‑‑could have made the distinction between the
fact that
A further question to the First Minister. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Manufacturing
Association, which was absolutely in support of free trade with the
In light of the fact that that is a
contradiction to one of
Hon.
Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): First of all, I should correct the Leader
of the Opposition. He has done this once
before back on, I believe it was, May 19, where he indicates and refers to
Premier Romanow and the position of
I have been at Trade ministers' meetings and
recently speaking to the economic minister in
Taking that one step further, Mr. Speaker, the
Leader of the Opposition referred to it on May 19 in this House, whereas the letter
from Premier Harcourt to the Prime Minister was June 4. Once again, strange
things are happening in terms of the positions and in terms of the ideological
bent that one party has instead of looking at all aspects of an issue. We have outlined six conditions. There is no final agreement yet. When that final agreement is put forward by
the federal government, we will evaluate it in relationship to our six
conditions and formulate a final position at that time.
Mr.
Doer: I will give the minister a copy of Premier
Romanow's statement at the last economic meeting. I am sure the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has a copy
of it. I am sure the Premier discussed this
with his two I.C. of the economy at his most recent economic meeting. But I have the statement of Premier Romanow,
and I will want an apology, for the minister opposite.
Mr. Speaker, the federal government, in the
I would ask the Premier now‑‑he
has changed his word once in going from opposition to free trade with
* (1350)
Mr.
Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, there will be no apology,
because Hansard clearly shows, on May 19, and I will quote from the Leader of
the Opposition: The Premier of
A letter written from Premier Harcourt of
In terms of the six conditions, we have made
them very clear. We stand by our six
conditions. There is no final agreement. The Leader of the Opposition is responding to
media reports and other suggestions that he is formulating, again, his position
based on one ideological point of view that has no flexibility. It is so rigid. It cannot address all aspects of a trade deal
in terms of what is in the best interest of
We do not operate that way, Mr. Speaker. We listen to all sides of an issue, and we
will formulate a position that is in the best interest of Manitobans and
Canadians, unlike the ideological bent of the opposition party.
AIDS Education Projects
Funding
Ms.
Judy Wasylycia-Leis (
The AIDS education project for immigrants and
refugees has been a successful two‑year project, funded by the federal
and
I would like to ask the Minister of
Health: How does this minister justify
denying the $50,000 necessary to keep this AIDS education project alive,
something the minister did by way of a letter on June 10, when he said funding
is no longer available to the AIDS education project for immigrants and
refugees?
Hon.
Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, my honourable
friend might also be aware that the federal government put in a little over
$60,000 over a two‑year period of time.
It is my understanding that the federal government is not choosing to
continue their funding, which then would transfer the entire cost to the
Mr. Speaker, in terms of prioritization of our
grants to all funded agencies, we analyzed a number of factors, and in approving
an annual grant of $164,800 to Planned Parenthood of
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about two separate
programs providing different needs and serving different communities. I would like to ask the minister if he will reconsider
this decision in light of an independent analysis completed as of May 1992 of
this AIDS education project, which clearly states that this project has been
highly successful and that it must be continued in its form as it is now. To try and absorb it into any other program
would spell disintegration of this initiative.
* (1355)
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, my honourable friend says this
is an entirely different community.
These are newcomers to
Now, Mr. Speaker, one of the observations, for
instance, by the Social Planning Council of Winnipeg is that various levels of government
and various other funding sources fund a plethora of programs in separate
agencies dealing with somewhat similar issues in the same geographic areas of
the province. Here we have a program
which we are putting almost $165,000 into this year, through Planned
Parenthood, for Immigrant‑Refugee Health Program, involving a multitude
of language capability training, et cetera.
We believe in today's context that a marriage of those two programs is
achievable, appropriate and effectively utilizing management resources to
deliver AIDS programming to newcomers to the
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Mr. Speaker, you know this government talks like
Tommy Douglas‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. Question.
The honourable member for
Ms.
Wasylycia-Leis: Would the minister, in light of his health care
reform Action Plan‑‑considering it costs $150,000 to treat one
person with AIDS from diagnosis to death‑‑would this minister reconsider
his heartless decision and agree to find $50,000 for a cost‑effective
AIDS prevention program in the immigrant refugee community?
Mr.
Orchard: Mr. Speaker, with as much common reason as I
can put to the answer, is my honourable friend saying that every time a single
disease entity comes along that we must fund a separate agency to deal with the
disease entity?
Mr. Speaker, this is AIDS. That is correct; my honourable friend says
this is AIDS. That is exactly why two
years ago‑‑as a matter of fact, Sir, three years ago, our AIDS
pamphlet was translated into a number of immigrant refugee languages, something
my honourable friend in government failed to do. That is why we believe, within the existing
resources of the department, within $165,000 of annualized funding to Planned Parenthood
to refugees on health issues, with the resources of the printed pamphlets in a
number of languages, with the back‑away of the federal government on a
two‑year pilot project, that we can marry the benefit of this project in
an existing program through Planned Parenthood and not duplicate bureaucracies
all across the province.
Constitutional Proposal
National Standards
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker,
in the
Can the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of the province
tell this House today if he believes this new direction, found in the rolling draft,
meets the expectations of Manitobans, as found in the two task force reports?
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): One
of the dangers of making a rolling draft available to the Leader of the Liberal
Party is that she takes that draft and assumes, contrary to what I have
previously said repeatedly in this House and elsewhere: nothing in this document is agreed to until a
package is agreed to.
* (1400)
The honourable member's concerns are well
founded, and they are very much on our minds in the discussions we have been having. One of the central elements of the all‑party
task force report, headed up by Professor Wally Fox‑Decent, is preserve a
strong central government so that smaller provinces, like
So when the honourable member refers to the
various areas of powers and says that these are devolved to the provinces‑‑untrue. That is just not true.
So you have to remember, Mr. Speaker, that
nothing here is agreed to until everything is.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, this is what we keep hearing: nothing
is agreed to. Yet we know that when the
final package comes down, we will be told it is a seamless web, that you cannot
uncross a "t" and you cannot undot an "i" or everything
falls apart. So it is absolutely
imperative that the discussions of these rolling texts take place now.
Will the Minister of Justice tell this House
why, throughout this rolling draft, they use the words "national
objectives" and not "national standards"? It was the words "national
standards" which were the words of Manitobans at both task force hearings.
Mr.
McCrae: Mr. Speaker, you will not find me referring to
anything that we have been doing as a seamless web.
I was about to say, the honourable member for
We need that kind of comfort on programs like
equalization to ensure that devolution of power does not have the effect feared
by the honourable member for
Mrs.
Carstairs: Mr. Speaker, if the media reports are correct,
all of the time and energy of the last meeting of ministers was spent on the
discussion of Senate reform. If there is
a meeting this week, all of the discussions are to take a role around the issue
of Senate reform.
Can the Minister of Justice tell us, if not
all of the other issues have been agreed upon, why are the ministerial meetings
only discussing Senate reform?
Mr.
McCrae: Well, Will Rogers used to say, all I know is
what I read in the paper, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly, that is all that the Leader of the Liberal Party has been
reading and is reading in the paper.
There are a lot of other things going on, as the honourable Leader of
the Liberal Party ought to understand. Having played an important role in the
last go around, that honourable member, of all honourable members, knows there
is more being discussed than simply the matter of Senate reform. It happens to have captured the imagination
of the news media, because who would have thought two years ago that we would
still be talking about a Triple‑E model of Senate reform? I suggest that we have achieved something in
that respect.
In the last round of discussions, Mr. Speaker,
in addition to the issue of Senate reform, much discussion was had about aboriginal
matters, and the honourable member for Rupertsland (Mr. Harper) was there and
can bear that out. There was much said
about‑‑well, not so much said about equalization, because the
federal government did some research and decided on some language that could be
acceptable to them which would do exactly what the Leader of the Liberal Party
is suggesting, and that is to preserve a strong central government in
Review
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the report
in the paper today is not the first time we have heard concerns that this
government attempts to control activity in the multicultural community,
especially dispel challenges to the government by threatening groups' access to
grants.
My question is for the Minister responsible
for Multiculturalism. Since the granting
function of the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council was previously a responsibility
of the Intercultural Council, will the minister deal with the concerns in the
community regarding multicultural grants by including the Grants Advisory
Council in the review of MIC so we have a comprehensive review of what is
happening with respect to this community?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr.
Speaker, I guess I would not have felt that the process of a multiculturalism
act was complete unless I heard some opposition from Wade Williams. It has happened today. So it has happened today; it is in the paper
now. He has never been known to be a
friend of this party. I believe he was multicultural
adviser to the Liberal Party at one time, and he might now be a multicultural
adviser to the New Democratic Party.
Mr. Speaker, The Multiculturalism Act that is
before the House right now is an act that is the consensus of those that I held
consultations with throughout the community, and it will remain intact.
Ms.
Cerilli: The minister is suggesting that she is not
going to listen to any demonstrations for amendments to the act.
Is it government policy to discourage appeals
to the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council and tell applicants that they are lucky
they are getting anything? If that is
not government policy, why is that happening, and why is that agency not being
reviewed when MIC is?
Mrs.
Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, that is quite a serious
allegation from the New Democratic Party.
If, in fact, there is any information that the member for Radisson has
that would indicate that in any way there has been interference‑‑and
I do want to indicate, before the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council took over,
under the Manitoba Intercultural Council, there was not even an appeal process. So people were told "yes" or
"no," and when they were told "no," there was no vehicle
that they could use to appeal that decision.
There is an appeal mechanism in place today, and anyone who feels that
they have been unfairly treated can appeal the process.
Multicultural Legislation
Amendments
Ms.
Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Given the history of interference
by this government in these communities, how can we be assured that communities
are going to feel free to propose amendments to the multicultural act that is
before the House?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): Mr.
Speaker, I have great difficulty believing in fact that people are afraid to
speak out. This government has never
left the impression with anyone in
This is a democratic society, Mr. Speaker, and
we value the input and the opinions of everyone. I respect everyone speaking out, saying what
they believe they should say. That is
part of a democracy, and that will continue in this country. I respect everyone's opinions. That does not necessarily mean that I agree with
every opinion that is presented, but I respect people speaking out and saying
what they think and what they believe.
DOTC Police Force
Funding
Mr.
Elijah Harper (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Minister of Justice.
The Aboriginal Justice Report, along with many
other people, praised the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council at least for their work. As a matter of fact, the AJI recommended that
it receive additional funding.
Regretfully, like other recommendations, the government has not acted on
the recommendations.
Will the Minister of Justice make a commitment
today to the DOTC police to ensure that their work and their program continues?
* (1410)
Hon.
James McCrae (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): The honourable member knows how the system
works when it comes to working with the federal government. Sometimes it is difficult, and he knows
that. We are getting some fairly
positive signals from the federal government more recently though with respect
to the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council probation services which has been in such
grave danger for the last little while.
We are hopeful that the federal government
will, in a very short period of time, make a very positive announcement with respect
to the continued existence of that very successful probation service. With respect to the DOTC police and the new regime
the federal government wants to set up, it is interesting, Mr. Speaker, that
the federal government would like to begin this new model with the DOTC police,
because it just happens that if we adopted the federal model immediately, the
provincial government would immediately begin contributing a far larger share
than we are now. So I have problems
accepting the federal government's view that that is the proper place to start
with aboriginal policing, because all it is is a way for the federal government
to unload the responsibility it has, until this date, been carrying on.
This government and the previous government
have been supporting the DOTC police department for a good number of years now,
and we want to see that kind of thing continue, but we have not made a
determination that we ought to dive in with both feet on the DOTC police
proposal, thus allowing the federal government to offload responsibility that
has been carried for a number of years.
Mr.
Harper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary to the same
minister.
Virtually all of the provinces have begun
negotiations or are in the process of negotiating with the federal government regarding
the aboriginal policing, yet here in
Will he meet with them now and start
discussing the arrangements?
Mr.
McCrae: In the past, Mr. Speaker, I have met numerous
times with representatives of the DOTC police, and there is no point having a
meeting with the federal government not being there to be a full partner in
those discussions. I think that is the difficulty
that we are experiencing, but as I said in the first answer, there is no point
starting with DOTC. They are going now. They need to be funded to a higher level;
there is no question about that, but in the interim period, that funding ought
not to be made available by the province but by the federal government.
We are interested in getting together with the
federal government and aboriginal people to talk about more appropriate policing
in their communities, but we are not about to let the federal government off
the hook just because the honourable member says we ought to allow that to
happen and we ought to start paying all the bills.
Under Section 91(24) of the Constitution,
aboriginal people and lands reserved for them are the responsibility of the
federal government, and we will not let them away from their responsibility as
easily as the honourable member would urge.
Mr.
Harper: To the same minister: Will he at least meet with the DOTC police
chief and also at least maybe agree to fund the DOTC police force until the end
of the fiscal year, until the tripartite agreement has been made between the
province and the federal government?
Will he ensure that will happen?
Mr.
McCrae: I would be interested in meeting again with
DOTC police if I thought that there was going to be something new to be
discussed. The point that I make with
the honourable member is that I will not use a meeting like that to go to the
meeting to say, all right, I will do what the honourable member for Rupertsland
(Mr. Harper) says and just sort of roll over and let the federal government off
the responsibilities it has been carrying.
I will not do that.
Now, if the meeting is for some other purpose,
then, sure, I would have a meeting with the DOTC police representatives. I have had them in the past.
Multicultural Legislation
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, we find that what the government
is doing by putting the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council into legislation, into
the multicultural act, they have a major flaw in the sense that what they are
doing is they are legalizing, if you will, the politicization of multicultural grants. I am going to ask the minister responsible to
do the honourable thing, because there is absolutely no need to have MGAC in
the multicultural act. Will she withdraw
that clause from the act?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism): We
have before us a piece of legislation that the majority of Manitobans,
specifically those within a lot of the ethnocultural communities, are
supportive of and are applauding, Mr. Speaker.
I look forward to hearing the opposition's comments on the legislation
and in fact moving it onto committee so that we can hear presentations from Manitobans
and hear what their concerns are and what their support might be for that
legislation.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister, can she
tell us who, besides the board members who have been appointed by her, supports
having the Manitoba Grants Advisory Council in the multicultural act? Who supports it? I do not know who the minister is speaking
to. It should be‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
The honourable member has put his question.
Mrs.
Mitchelson: There are many from the community whom I have spoken
to, who do agree, in fact. As I
indicated earlier, I am looking forward to this bill passing on to committee so
that in fact Manitobans can come and make presentations on the content of the
act.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, the minister would not give one name,
and I think that is‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
Given the treatment that she has dished out to
the Manitoba Intercultural Council and given her commitment to the Manitoba Intercultural
Council that the MIC would be included in a multicultural act that she gave me,
Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister why has she excluded the Manitoba Intercultural
Council from the multicultural act?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister responsible for Multiculturalism):
Given that there does not seem to be any consensus within the community
on changes to the Manitoba Intercultural Council, we have set up, Mr. Speaker,
a consultant who is going to consult broadly.
I do know that consultant is going to speak with members of the Liberal
Party if they will speak to him. He is
going to speak to members of the New Democratic Party and not only those present
members, but indeed the former minister, Eugene Kostyra, who brought in The
Manitoba Intercultural Council Act and the present member for
So he is going to meet with everyone within
the community who has something to say and look at what, in fact, amendments should
be made to The Manitoba Intercultural Council Act. If that report recommends that the Manitoba
Intercultural Council should be included in a multiculturalism act or in the
act, you know every year acts are amended in this Legislature, so that process
can take place.
North American Free Trade Agreement
Clarification
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, a few minutes
ago the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, (Mr. Stefanson), who obviously
is in no communication with the Premier who attends the economic meetings of
government, stated that
I would like to ask the Premier to advise his
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism what was said at the first meeting on the
economy and not misrepresent the Premier of Saskatchewan on this very important
issue.
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, we have here the classic case of
the New Democratic Party who have ideological blinders on an issue such as
trade. They are willing, no matter what
they know about it‑‑and in the case of the Leader of the Opposition,
he knows very little about it‑‑to make a decision, sight
unseen. They are opposed‑‑totally,
ideologically blinkered. They put their
head in the sand like an ostrich, and they do absolutely nothing but oppose,
oppose, oppose, regardless of any fact.
That is not the kind of thing that we will support.
Premier's Position
Mr.
Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the Premier then: Was the
position he took on the Leaders' debate during the last election, in front of
all Manitobans, to oppose the free trade negotiations with
Hon.
Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I thought the Leader of the
Opposition was too busy stage‑managing himself, taking his jacket off, to
pay attention to anything that was said during that Leaders' debate. When his handlers and his stage managers got hold
of him there, I did not think he had any time for any issues to be
discussed. I am glad that he was paying
attention.
Of course, Mr. Speaker, the issue was that
there was no free trade agreement to be discussed or considered at that time. There
was no agreement to be considered at that time.
There is a proposal forward now, to which we have responded
comprehensively with six conditions that we say, if those six conditions are
met, then there could be benefit to
That is the situation that we have put
ourselves in, given the fact that there is a discussion taking place, that
there is a draft being discussed. We
have put our six conditions on the table to say that if those six conditions
are met, then we will consider that agreement because it would, under those
conditions, hold benefit for Manitobans and Canadians.
* (1420)
Bill 82
Environmental Guidelines
Mr.
John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has
introduced The Farm Practices Protection and Consequential Amendments Act, Bill
82. It is largely consistent with
legislation in other provinces.
However, in February, when the minister
released the discussion paper in preparation for the bill, he included four items
that had to be addressed by the government.
He said that there was a need to review livestock regulations under The Environment
Act with a view to setting minimum environment standards‑‑and I am
quoting from the minister's paper of February.
Also, he said that there was a need to assist municipalities in their
land‑use planning approaches to agricultural operations.
Since the minister is asking us now, Mr.
Speaker, to pass Bill 82, dealing with farm practices protection, can he tell
this House what progress he has made with regard to those other three issues
that he considered important in February to be addressed hand in hand with this
legislation before this House.
Hon.
Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): I am pleased to report
to the member that I have asked the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) and
the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) to look at the planning and the
environment acts with regard to being consistent with what we are going to pass
in Bill 82. We have also set up a
committee to develop the guidelines that will be used in the process of making
decisions under the bill.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr. Speaker, since the minister in his own
paper also said that there is considerable variability in the manner in which
agriculture operations, especially livestock, are addressed by municipalities,
why has he not ensured that that issue has been addressed prior to bringing the
legislation in so that situations that have developed with Pur‑A‑Tone
applying in one municipality and another are not treated differently from municipality
to municipality because of an absence of any standards?
Mr.
Findlay: Mr. Speaker, guidelines in many agriculture operations
are now available‑‑I would not say in place, but available‑‑and
they will be scrutinized to determine their acceptability for the process we
are talking about here on Bill 82. We
will ask the municipalities to look at them, to use them in the decision‑making
process they are involved in.
I can tell you many of the municipalities in
the last year have come forward and asked that we participate with them in guideline
development. That is going on. A committee has been struck involving my
department, other departments and the municipalities to work toward getting
those guidelines in place so they will work for everybody's betterment.
Mr.
Plohman: Mr. Speaker, the minister brought four major initiatives
out in his paper in February. He is only
addressing one of them in this legislation.
I ask the minister why he has not followed his own discussion paper with
regard to the issue of including the issues of water quality and health under
The Environment Act for livestock operations prior to bringing in the act which
will now provide protection for large operations?
Mr.
Findlay: Mr. Speaker, as a result of both the first discussion
paper that went out and the second discussion paper, a lot of issues surfaced,
and all those issues are being addressed in a consultative process within
government and outside of government. We
are fully aware of what needs to be done, and all the processes are in place
and working toward the conclusion.
Mr.
Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
Speaker's Ruling
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. I have a ruling for the House.
On June 9, 1992, the opposition House leader,
the honourable member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), rose on a matter of privilege and
moved "That the question of security at the
After contributions from the House leader for
the Liberal Party, the honourable member for
Privilege, as defined by Sir Erskine May, is
"the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively . . .
and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge
their functions."‑‑Beauchesne's Citation 24. Joseph Maingot puts it more simply by stating
that "Parliamentary privilege is the necessary immunity that the law
provides for members of Parliament, and for members of the legislatures of each
of the ten provinces and two territories, in order for these legislators to do
their legislative work."‑‑Parliamentary Privilege in
Maingot also deals with the matter of
assaulting or threatening of members, and I quote: "Members are entitled to go about their
parliamentary business undisturbed. The
assaulting, menacing, or insulting of any member on the floor of the House or while
(s)he is coming to or going from the House, or on account of his (or her)
behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament, is a violation of the rights of
Parliament." That is found on page 196. However, Maingot points out that to be
considered a matter of privilege, any molestation or intimidation of the member
must relate to his parliamentary duties unless the circumstances arise within
the precincts when the House is sitting.
To qualify as privilege, it must be shown that
the member was obstructed or interfered with in his work relating to a proceeding
in Parliament and not simply performing his representative duties in his
constituency or other areas.
No connection has been established between the
events of Monday night and the member's behaviour during a proceeding in Parliament. Therefore, I am ruling that the matter raised
by the opposition House leader does not satisfy the conditions of privilege. The issue is, however, a most serious one,
and the House may wish to debate the motion to refer the question of security
to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I leave that to the will
of the House.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, having raised
the matter of privilege and appreciating your ruling, I would certainly say on
behalf of our caucus that we feel referring the matter to committee would
probably be the best way of dealing with the various concerns that arose out of
this incident. I appreciate the comments
in your ruling in that regard, and I would suggest that perhaps we do that and
agree to referring it to the Committee on Privileges and Elections and discuss
it further there.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr.
Speaker, we do not have any problem. We
think that the recommendation that has been put forward from the official opposition
House leader is a good one and would support it going to the committee for
further discussion.
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the question
of security is always an important issue and one that should probably be dealt
with on an ongoing basis. Consequently, we
have no difficulty in seeing the motion referred to the Committee on Privileges
and Elections. Well, the motion, of course,
is ruled out of order, but I will undertake when that committee is sitting, to
include it as one of the agenda items.
Mr. Speaker:
I would like to thank all honourable members for their advice, and that
does conclude this matter.
Committee Changes
Mr.
Edward Helwer (Gimli): I move, seconded by the member for St. Vital
(Mrs. Render), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Privileges and
Elections be amended as follows: the member
for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) for the member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay);
the member for Morris (Mr. Manness) for the member for River East (Mrs.
Mitchelson); the member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) for the member for
Rossmere (Mr. Neufeld); the member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) for the member for
La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson). [Agreed!
* (1430)
House Business
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, before I move the Supply motion,
I wonder whether or not there is a will to waive private members' hour.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members'
hour?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No, leave is denied.
Mr.
Manness: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether or
not there is a willingness to reconvene tonight, instead of at eight o'clock,
at 7 p.m. this evening.
Mr.
Speaker: Is it the will of the House to reconvene at
seven rather than at eight?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No,
there is no consent there at all.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek permission
then to waive Rule 65.(9)(c), which presently does not provide for starting a
new department after 10 p.m. I wonder
whether or not there is unanimous consent to waive that rule.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there a will to waive Rule 65.(9)(c)?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No, there is no leave for that either.
Mr.
Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will try one more time. I will ask whether there is unanimous consent
to waive Rule 65.(9)(d), which allows the consideration of another department
after 10 p.m.
Mr.
Speaker: Is there will of the House to waive Rule 65.(9)(d)? Do you want me to read it out?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Speaker: No, there is no leave for that one either.
Mr.
Manness: Well, zero for four, Mr. Speaker.
Mr.
Speaker: Yes, you are not doing very well.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon.
Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Mr. Speaker do now leave
the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the
Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion presented.
* * *
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Speaker, I rise to continue the grievance
I started on Thursday of last week.
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Pursuant to Rule 26.1(3):
"Any debate pursuant to this Rule is terminated when the House adjourns
on the day of the debate and shall not be continued or resumed at the next or
any subsequent sitting of the House."
* * *
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 Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and the Department of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship; and the honourable member for Seine River
(Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation,
and the Department of Energy and Mines.
Mr. Speaker: Madam Deputy Speaker, take the Chair, please.
* (1440)
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please. 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
the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 2.(a) Consumers' Bureau:
(1) Salaries $914,100 on page 25.
Mr.
Gulzar Cheema (The Maples): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I
do have a few questions on this branch.
As the minister knows full well, we have raised one issue with her,
about the
Hon.
Linda McIntosh (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I
wonder, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the member could just repeat that last line,
because you asked me to verify something as correct and your voice got lost in
the noise here.
Mr.
Cheema: Okay, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will try
again. What I am asking simply is the situation as regards rents at the 4
Carriere Avenue place where, during 1983 and 1986, rent increases were
introduced and later on, as the place was sold, these increases took place by
means of new increases, and every time a new resident would move they still
have to pay on the basic rent which was already more than it was required. Basically,
if you move into a place you have to pay an increase, but there is no
regulation that if somebody is moving next time he has to pay on the same basic
rent as it was at the initial stage. So,
for example, if you have a resident place, you can have four new tenants in one
year, and every time you increase the rent by 3 percent or 4 percent, you end
up going up 16 percent. That was the
situation at this place.
Can the minister tell us, is she aware of the
situation?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a complex
issue the member has raised before and that we have discussed. It is an issue in which we have been guided
by legal opinion. As the member knows,
the whole issue revolves around the interpretation of Section 34 of The
Residential Rent Regulation Act. My department's
legal advice is that we cannot take action on the event which took place more
than two years prior to the property change in ownership. In other words, in this particular instance no
application was made for rent increase.
The rent was increased without approval for those increases, and the
landlords subsequently changed.
The new landlord did comply and obtain
information he was required to according to law, and part of that information
was to establish whether any improper rent increases had taken place in the two
years prior to that new landlord taking ownership. He did obtain that information and no
improper rent increases had been taken in those two years prior nor were any
monies outstanding. The landlord had no
way of knowing that the increases that had taken place years prior to that and
that no approval had been sought for them.
That is not to say that those increases would not have been given
approval if they were proper, it is just that approval was not requested. That two‑year period, it is deemed to
be a reasonable amount of time in which to trace back, because in the majority
of cases tenants will come forward, indeed, usually much sooner than within two
years to indicate concern about rent increases if they have them.
The landlord must make available a listing of
the rent charged for the two years prior to taking purchase, and the amount of
money due and unpaid under any order from this branch. You have to read
Sections 34(1) and 34(2) together. So we
are advised by our legal counsel that we cannot take action in this instance.
* (1450)
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am really
surprised. I do have the copy of the
legal opinion, and it clearly indicates that the responsibility is on the new
landlord for the previous two years.
Now, is it not unfair in terms of if you buy a place and you have 40
tenants in your place, charge them 4 percent more under the regulation and then
sell to somebody else and that person will come and do the same thing, or even
if he or she is not selling they could still have new tenants and still charge
on the basic rent? When you have known
this for two years at least, why have you not made a point of correcting the
problem? Why do we continue to follow
the same thing that happened in 1984?
Mrs.
McIntosh: The member raises an interesting point, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, and you know the question essentially that he is asking is, how
far back does one go in tracing issues in past history before ownership changes
take place? This instance that he is
describing is one that does not occur very often, and the fact that it does not
occur very often leads me to believe that maybe the two years is an appropriate
date. Now that could be extended to
three years or four years or 10 years.
Certainly, I am prepared to listen to arguments that might have us
change the act to have it be more than two years, but the issue that takes place
here is the new landlord, coming in to purchase the property, is compelled to
look back two years and does that.
Now in looking back two years and presenting
information to the branch that shows the previous two years, the renewal, unapproved
rent hikes, et cetera, that new landlord, making a purchase of that property,
then expects that he will generate a certain amount of revenue for himself as a
result of acquiring that piece of property.
The member is talking about fairness. I appreciate the point he is making, because
it is a point that is one we all want to see addressed, that people are treated
fairly. That would include the landlord,
who, in assuming the property rightly, according to his perspective, I think
having followed all the rules, assumes that he will generate a certain amount
of income from that particular property.
To then penalize him to say, well, during the
two years that the rents were put up, and we understand in this instance how
the rents did go up, and that was as each former tenant moved out, the previous
landlord had gone in and extensively renovated the suites and then made the
adjustment in the rent to cover that particular suite, but never asked for
approval on that. So there is no way of
the branch being able to prove whether the renovations were made or not made,
justifying a rent increase, because approval was not sought.
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
So the new landlord should not be penalized
for actions taken years prior to him assuming the property. Now, if the length of time to search back is
too short, which I think may be the issue the member is trying to address, that
two years is not a long enough period to go back and search, then maybe that
two years could or should be changed.
I am not adverse to looking at that. What I am saying in this instance is that the
period identified is two years and the law that is in place to cover this
situation prohibits us from taking action.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister tell us how it is possible that the minister has said it is occurring very
rarely? How do we know that this is the
only place with problems like this occurring?
It could happen in many places. It could happen for many homeowners, who
could rent the property three times or four times in one year, and there is a
changeover of the tenant, it can happen.
The question is fairness. I think if we do not address the basic issue
here, I do not think we are going to be satisfied. I told you that day‑‑that was
last week‑‑that I am not an expert in this area, but something I
have read and I have a major concern with, we want to have a problem
solved. It is not just going to disappear
and say, well, we have a legal opinion.
The legal opinion is by one individual group. Why cannot we have some decision process
where the legal opinion can be taken to a tribunal or the board members where
it can be given the opposite argument?
I mean if you want to have a legal opinion
about something you want to happen, the way you would like to think, it is very
possible. Simply I am saying that is
unfair, specifically when people have been there, and they have paid rent more
than they have to and they have no place else to go. They have gone to you, they have come to us
and they have gone to the lawyers, but their problem is not solved.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I just first
of all wish to clarify that I did not say that we have had no other concerns of
this nature. I said that fortunately
this is not a concern that we hear very often.
I have checked with staff and indeed we have not heard any other
complaints of this nature, so that does not mean there are not complaints out
there that exist. They have not been
brought to our attention if they do. We do not shop for legal opinions. We have legal counsel assigned to the department
who provides us with legal opinions.
What we find a little unusual in this case‑‑and
indeed quite unusual in this case‑‑is that this issue was not
brought to our attention by virtue of a complaint from a tenant at the time or indeed
during the two years, or indeed immediately thereafter. It came up many years
later and was brought to our attention. Now, I do not know how far back the
member wishes us to go. I reiterate
again that the legal opinion we have received indicates that we can only go back
two years prior to the date of the new landlord acquiring the property. It is felt that during that two‑year
period most tenants having a concern would indeed come forward. Indeed, most tenants with a concern about
rent increases come forward very, very quickly.
So this not only did not take place during the two years, it did not
take place for sometime after until recently when a particular individual known
to the Liberal critic did indeed come forward with this concern.
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (
* (1500)
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
by staff that, no, there have been no complaints on this issue until recently. That complaint came on this one particular
issue that was raised to the member for The Maples (Mr. Cheema) by the particular
individual who brought the matter forward.
Mr.
Lamoureux: I think that it would be somewhat rare for an individual
who is moving into a rented facility to have an excellent background knowledge
as to when it would have received rent increases and so forth in the past. It gets additionally complicated when you
have landlords who have sold the building or there has been a change in
landlords. Does the government have any
idea other than just this one particular case is, if this occurs, but we do not
have the tenants coming forward to express that particular problem. Does the government have any idea in terms
of, is this at all a problem? Does she
foresee it to be any sort of a problem, a loophole or something of that nature within
the rent increase guidelines?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am advised by
staff that in the approximately 10 years that The Residential Rent Regulation
Act has been in place, this is the only situation of this nature that has been
brought to the department's attention, and it is not perceived to be a problem
in a general sense.
Mr.
Lamoureux: So that I can get the record fairly clear for
myself, the minister or the government then is of the opinion that‑‑who
is responsible? Who should be footing
the bill? Is it the current
landlord? Is that what the legal opinion
is saying? Would the minister concur that it should not be the tenants, that it
should be the original landlord?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, our
advice, our legal counsel's opinion on this issue is that we cannot go back
beyond two years. Let me explain
again. The purchaser, the new landlord,
the one who is considering acquiring a particular piece of property has an obligation
to provide the branch with information going back at least two years as to any
monies that might be outstanding, any bills that might be unpaid, and any rent
increases that have taken place that may not be legal rent increases, i.e., not
approved or something of that nature, a listing of the rents charged. A better way to put it would be, he puts in a
listing of the rent charged for the two years prior to taking the
purchase. So he would indicate that the
rent in such and such a year was X, the rent the next year was X plus so‑much
percent. That percentage would either
have to comply with the rent regulation guidelines or have been one that was approved
by the branch.
The landlord in this instance complied with
the law, submitted those. There had been
no rent increases taken in the previous two years that did not comply with
law. There were no monies outstanding
for those two years. Hence, the landlord
assumed the property in good faith with the assumption that the rents that were
being charged were rents that he, in turn, could also charge.
The tenants had that two‑year period in
which to come forward to indicate if they felt there were any irregularities in
their rent increases or in the rent that they were paying for the rental units
that they had just moved into. All
tenants moved in accepting the rents that were there without question. We are advised that, according to the way the
act is, we cannot go back past that.
Now, if the member is suggesting that the
tenants who did not come forward in those two years or who, upon moving into
the apartment did not question the rent they were paying, should now get their
rent rolled back because the new landlord may, in fact, be receiving rents from
an increase that was given many years prior to his assuming the building, that
was never approved, that he did not know of, then what the member is suggesting
is that the act should read back maybe 10 years or 12 years, or 50 years or
five years or six years, some other year more than two years. What I am saying
to you is that may be something that should be done, but the current act says
two years, and we must obey and abide by legal counsel and the wording of the
act.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate
the minister giving a well‑detailed answer on that. It calls into question, in terms of what the
minister then really is saying, as the tenants, because they moved in and did
not know that there were increases that exceeded the guidelines, if you will,
in previous years, that they really do not have any recourse according to this
minister, nor should they really expect it because the legislation does not
allow for it.
I am wondering in terms of what is there or is
there anything in the legislation that prevents something of this nature from happening
in the future? I started off by saying
that there are tenants, when they go moving into an apartment block, do not necessarily
go and find out every instance when there was a rent increase.
It is quite the onus to have to put on a
tenant, and we are not suggesting that it should not be on the tenant, but I
would suggest to you that the government's response that the tenants are really
the ones who unfortunately will have to cover the cost of this particular instance. What I am saying is that really what the
government is trying to say is that the tenants in this particular case are the
ones who are going to have to pay for that unjustness.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, what I am
saying to the member, and I will say it again, is that I am abiding by the
interpretation of the law as written in the
Mr.
Lamoureux: Yes, the minister is obligated to do that,
but as a minister she is somewhat obligated to look after the interests of both
landlords and tenants, and where there could possibly be some positive change
that the minister not rule it out, even though the department itself might not
necessarily feel that it is a large enough issue that has to be addressed. As I alluded to, the tenants are really the
ones who are losing out most by this, because unfortunately they did not do
their homework, I guess.
In respect to landlords, what is in place or
what action can the government take if the government finds out that a
particular block or a particular rental unit three years ago had a 6 percent rent
increase? It can be just as small as an
independent home, a single family dwelling that is being rented out, whether it
is was 6 percent increase three years ago, is there anything that the
government can do about it if they were to find out about it today?
* (1510)
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, where no
purchase is involved, then the department can go back as many years as they
want. The only time the two‑year
search is required and the only time the two‑year time limit is imposed
is if there is a change of ownership.
Without a change of ownership, the branch can go back and search three,
four, five, six years and have the rents corrected for the tenants.
It is only where there is a change of
ownership that it was deemed wise some many years ago to pick a time in which
the purchaser would have to go back and trace.
Otherwise you make the purchaser responsible back to infinity or to the
beginning of the time that the building existed for what landlords and previous
landlords and previous landlords and previous landlords did, and you know, as
the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) said, they wished to be fair to both
landlords and tenants. That is what I
hope the act does is be fair to both sides of the marketplace, not just one
side of the marketplace.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister maybe refer back to her own law in terms of Section 34(2), "Obligations
of new landlord"? It clearly states
that: "Where the right, title or
interest of a landlord in residential premises is acquired by a new landlord,
all duties and obligations arising out of the payment of excess rents paid by tenants
of the residential premises become the responsibility of the new landlord . . .
."
I do not want to read the whole thing here,
but I mean, if you accept that, then why for the last two years have you not gone
back and rolled back those rents which were illegally increased?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as indicated, Sections
34(1) and 34(2) must be read together, as you know many laws are. They all have clauses that taken in isolation
they have to be read in conjunction with other clauses. I think if you read (1) and (2) together, you
will see that interpretation that has been given to us by legal counsel. As I indicated before, this is a problem that
in the history of The Rent Regulation Act has been brought to our attention
once by your friend, by the person you know, not that long ago, and is brought to
our attention many years after the fact.
I say to the member, how far back do you want us to go?
When there is no purchase involved, we go as
far back as we need to, to ensure that an existing landlord has not put in a rent
increase that has not been approved. We
do not know in this instance if the rent increases, had they been applied for,
would have been approved or not. They
are illegal in the sense that they never got approval. We do not know that they were illegal in the
sense that the work that was alleged to have been done got done or not done
because it was never applied. No one was
asked to come out and check to see if the renovations had taken place. They
were not approved, which means they were not approved increases and they are
supposed to be.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, can the
minister then tell us, as she has just said, that you know the department is not
aware of whether that was really illegal rent, so you are basically disputing
all the residents who live there and who have basically asked and made a plea
that their rent was increased on the basis of, and information they are
providing? I would trust them; I am not
going to trust somebody else. I will
trust the people who have paid the rent for the last so many years, and whether
somebody else took their money and ran away and then you have a new landlord,
but still those are the individuals and I do not wish to question their
integrity because basically I just want the minister to clarify that. It could be taken that those people are not
telling the truth.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am saying
that in terms of the rent increases not being proper rent increases, I am not
saying that the increases are illegal rent increases, using that word, because
it has been proven that renovations were never done. I am saying that they were considered to be unauthorized
rent increases because approval was not sought for renovations which may or may
not have been done. We do not know, because
approval was never sought for those rent increases, nor did tenants come
forward to speak to us about them at the time, so we do not know. We just know that no approval was ever
sought.
Mr.
Cheema: Can the minister tell me then, even if we say
that your legal opinion is 100 percent right, what have you done for the last
two years in terms of dealing with this situation?
Mrs.
McIntosh: The rent increases for the last two years have
been legally approved.
Mr.
Cheema: The rent has been approved on the illegal
entries in the past, so why have not you taken steps in terms of at least correcting
the problem? You recognize the problem
is there and legal counsel recognizes the problem is there, why not correct the
situation? Why do we have to wait for
somebody else to make the same mistake?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, let me repeat again,
maybe I am not expressing myself clearly.
We cannot take any action in this instance according to the legal advice
we have been given because there has been a change in ownership. Some years ago, the landlord who purchased
the building went back in time according to law, those two years that he was
obliged to do, to check out increases, to check out if any money is owing.
There had been no unapproved increases in that
two‑year period. There had been no
monies left outstanding when he assumed ownership of the building; therefore,
he purchased the building assuming that he had the right to continue charging
the rent that was being charged.
Mr.
Cheema: As I told you from the beginning, I am not exploring,
I am simply seeking some clarification.
I am making sure that if, as we see‑‑and I should not say
"if," the problem is there, and there has to be some method of
correcting the problem. This is only one
situation, where the one large block was under this kind of manipulation, but
there could be others in terms of single homeowners or single dwellings where
similar things could be done. It is very
easy to do. We do not expect consumers
to be well informed when they do not know what is happening. For example, if I own a house and I want to
rent it, every three months I could sign a lease and get a new tenant, so every
time my basic rent can go up.
I mean, how can we say that this problem does
not exist in
So basically these things can happen. I mean somebody can put a lock on the door
and say, I have corrected some of the problems so I am going to increase your
basic rent, because the quality of the premises has increased. So those are the very right issues. I just wanted the minister to look into that
and make sure that we can bring something to correct the problem, if not this
session‑‑we are already late‑‑but it should be done in the
next session and the minister should make a commitment.
* (1520)
I mean we are not criticizing her, she just
came a year ago. The previous minister of the NDP government was almost
sleeping on the issue. In '84 and '87,
they were basically sleeping on the whole issue, but you have known this for
two years. You have a legal
opinion. We have asked you
questions. The consumers, who are in
this process, they have asked you questions.
So basically why not fix it if there is a problem, and there seems to be
a problem? You are in agreement, your
department knows there is a problem. We
know there is a problem, so they must be answered, and we are asking the answer
from your experts.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if you did those
things that you indicated in the opening of your remarks that you could do and
get away with, let me assure you that if you were discovered you would not get
away with them. Because if there had
been no change of ownership and you were hiking rents and were not getting
approval, we would not have to stop at a two‑year prior search. We could go back three, four, five, six years,
as long as you have owned that building, and we would.
I must reiterate that rent regulation has been
in place since 1982, '83, somewhere in there, about a decade, 10 years. This issue is the only one of this nature
that has been brought to our attention in that 10 years. I do not think the original drafters of the
legislation did such a bad job on this particular issue if this is the only
concern that has come forward in all that time of this nature.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not want
to irritate the minister and upset her, but certainly I think the issue is
important, and as long as we can try to get more clarification and explanation
and make sure this can be corrected, and that is the whole intent here.
Can the minister tell me what is the other
mechanism in terms of, if we accept this legal opinion as I said, and then we
cannot trace the previous landlord and we cannot punish the present landlord
because he is protected by that. The
present landlord is protected, because within Section 32(4) the landlord is protected,
so what is the final appeal mechanism?
Does the minister have the authority to make some decisions and make
sure something unjustifiable was corrected?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the option
that would be available, should the member feel the two‑year period is inadequate,
would be to put an amendment to the act to put it back to four years or five
years, but then you would find, I think, the same situation. Sooner or later, an issue would come along
where someone would say, ah, you only go back 10 years and this issue that I am
affected with happened 11 years ago, so you better change it to go back to 11
years, and you better make sure that it is the owner before the owner before
the owner. At some point in a situation
where ownership change has taken place there has to be a cut‑off point
beyond which the new owner is no longer liable for the sins of those who went
prior to him.
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do agree
with the minister, there has to be some limit, but basically what we are asking
is for her to seek some more clarification and legal opinion and come up with
an amendment. Try to make sure these problems
can be corrected, and something can be done to teach consumers so that they are
well informed.
It is very tough for somebody to within two
minutes be an expert in Consumer and Corporate Affairs and know all the rules and
regulations and read the whole act, but I think they should be at least well
informed and their rights should be protected. Basically what we are saying is
that the individual's rights must be protected here, if somebody who owns the
property and should not be taking advantage of situations. Situations, as I explained, can be very good,
if they are practical problems. I just
want the minister to take note of those, our comments, they are not coming from
basically political experience, they are basically coming from the concerns,
and I am sure when more individuals know about these cases, who knows, it could
be more than what we know. So I will ask
the minister to look into this situation, and next session, please bring the
amendments.
(Mr.
Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 2. Consumer Affairs (a) Consumers' Bureau: (1) Salaries $914,100.
Mr.
Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just like to
take advantage of this opportunity for committee to ask the minister about an
issue that was before the committee and before the department during the
passage of the bill and has been raised with me since, and that is this
question of how capital is included in the calculation of rental increases?
Specifically, there are provisions within the
regulations that allow for the assigning of depreciation allowances that they will
flow through the capital increase, allowing a rental increase above the
guideline in order to take into account the renovations and repairs and the
acquisition of new equipment and such for a facility. There is a set repayment period allowed for that?
The question has always come up, with certain
items of capital that are in need of replacement, why, when the piece of equipment
lasts longer than the write‑off period, do the rents not go down
again? Why is that amount incorporated
in the base rent then and then we build on that in subsequent years?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
that when the rent regulations that go with the capital expenditures, the
depreciation, were set up, the landlords do not have the interest on that. They have to put the money all up front. They will have to purchase a $1,000 item for
a $1,000 and pay for it, and then do not have that interest as the time period
goes on throughout the depreciation.
It was felt that the three‑, four‑
and six‑time‑year periods would balance off and leave the landlord
in a net fair position at the end of the time of the depreciated period. Then the rent would not go down at that time
in an effort to balance off and create fairness.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, so if I understand the
situation then, the issue is recognized in that there is no reduction in base
rent as a result of these increases, which are allowed in response to specific
actions on the part of a landlord, but it is felt that the interest is high
enough to justify maintaining that base rate.
As I recall, I think, for a capital purchase such as a refrigerator or a
stove, it is a five‑year write‑down?
Mrs.
McIntosh: At the moment, the regulation says six years
for that particular capital expenditure.
Mr.
Alcock: Refrigerators, in a number of the cases that
we looked at, when they were being replaced, were having an average life of
some 20 years, and a six‑year depreciation is about 18 percent a
year. Is that not a rather usurious rate
to allow a landlord in perpetuity?
* (1530)
Mrs.
McIntosh: I sure wish my fridge did last 20 years. I just want to indicate to the member‑‑it
is questionable that all fridges last 20 years, is the point, I guess, because
I certainly just had one that did not last anywhere near that long, but the member
has to realize the way rent regulations work and what the purpose of rent
regulations is.
Rent regulations were put in to control the
marketplace, and in controlling the marketplace and regulating the marketplace,
you have rents going along on a certain line.
There are regulations attached to those controls where you will have
little hills and little valleys going along that line all the time. The idea is to ensure that those hills are
never too high or those valleys too low, so regulations will be drafted.
This is one regulation that is drafted to try
to take into account how to balance off some valleys with some hills so that you
still have incentive there for people to go into the rental property business,
to provide housing, to provide rental accommodations to people in the
marketplace and to maintain and keep up those particular premises.
If you want to put in regulations that are so
restrictive that landlords will have no incentives to go out and purchase new refrigerators
or replace drapes or fix up frayed carpeting, then we can go along the route
that I think you are implying, but I would suggest to you that if you do that,
there is no incentive in there for landlords to try and upgrade their premises
or even, in some instances, to maintain them in a manner that tenants require
or deserve.
So you will find regulations that in some
instances appear to give a slight advantage, after a certain period of time, to
a tenant or conversely, the other way, to a landlord in order to provide
incentives, in order to provide a comfort to proceed in certain directions in
co‑operation with each other, but overall, the rent regulation control
guidelines are to have this line through which a wavy line goes that has no
sharp peaks and no deep valleys.
Mr.
Alcock: I certainly agree with the minister both on
the life of refrigerators and the need‑‑no system is perfect, and
there will be variations in any system that you bring in. However, when this was looked at in some
detail, as it was just prior to the passage of the last bill, what was noticed
was that in older buildings with consistent management over a period of time,
the gross profit of the owner was not going up and down in this wavy line
manner but was consistently moving upwards as the owner took advantage of this
rather generous capital cost allowance to continue to build the base rate well
in excess of the guidelines.
There had been a suggestion made by one of the
members of the branch that there was a target for gross profit. In this particular case, it had been
exceeded, and that difference was growing, not exceeded for a period of time,
not below for a period of time, but in fact moving in one very lock step direction.
I guess I would ask the minister‑‑while
I do not dispute the need for balance at all.
I think we have had one of the better rent regulation processes in North
America, certainly when you look at what is happening in rent controls in other
parts of the continent in particular and seeing the rather disastrous impact it
has had on the creation of new properties and on bringing in line new
properties.
However, there is this one anomaly that was
not addressed in the act, in part because the problem lay in regulation. I am not certain whether that problem has
been solved yet, and I am not certain whether the minister's remarks address a
solution to this particular problem.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member is implying
that there is a problem and that it requires a solution. Maybe there is where our differences
lie. I may not agree that there is a
problem that requires a solution, so we are probably coming at this from very
different approaches. The member had
said, as he started his comments, that he had looked at gross profits during
the evolution of the new act and indicated that some people‑‑he did
not name them‑‑but he is obviously seeing books that I am not
seeing. I do not have privy to looking
at books as to who is making gross profits or undue profits or, you know,
taking advantage of people to line pockets.
I have not seen those figures.
I guess the other point that should be made is
that we do not, in setting guidelines and rules and regulations for the marketplace,
set a cap on profits. We do not say, for
example, to the side of the marketplace that is the landlord's side, you are
only allowed to make X number of dollars profit a year or X percentage of
profits a year. In fact, that is not a
question. We look at what is fair for the marketplace. What is a fair rent guideline, for example,
this year for tenants to be expected to pay?
Last year when we looked at that, it was
determined in the final analysis that 3 percent was a guideline that was a fair
rent increase for tenants to pay. Now,
we did not go to landlords and say, will 3 percent give you a big profit or a small
profit or an in‑between profit? We
determined that was a fair rent increase for tenants to pay according to the guideline. So I am not quite sure what the member is
talking about when he talks about the gross profits. I can only say that I do not know what kind
of profits any particular landlords are making, and I cannot respond to his
indication of knowledge in that area.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister
for that remark. If I understood her
correctly then, when one is looking at the operation of a block and the costs
of operation and all of the costs associated with the operation of a series of rental
units as one does when one makes a determination on what size of increase will
be allowed‑‑I mean, those figures come out of the documents that
are submitted to the department when they make those kinds of determinations,
so they are there. It was believed at
one time, now I am not the final word on this obviously, that there was an allowance‑‑if
the gross profit, that is the profit before mortgage payments and the like were
paid but after operating costs were taken out, was in the order of 49 percent
of the total, that this was considered to be acceptable and that in successive
years we have seen that level exceeded.
I mean, the reason I raise this at all is that
the minister made this comment about this wavy line, you are up, you are down, you
are up, you are down and you eventually end up somewhere. In the experience that we have had in the
blocks that we have looked at over here it has been steadily upwards. The profitability of those units has been
increasing, and despite that, and this is really the question, despite the fact
that the buildings are more profitable today than they were even two or three
years ago, they are still being allowed rental increases in excess of the guideline.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, I would like first of all to ask the
member what the rate of profitability is or should be, but I also would like to
indicate that if profits are so high, why are we not seeing increased sales of
buildings? Why are we seeing such a high‑‑there
is a high vacancy rate in the buildings.
Buildings are not turning over.
Landlords who are attempting to sell their buildings, and there are
many, are finding very great difficulty finding customers for those
buildings. I think that, you know, maybe
with interest rates coming down on buildings it might help a little bit to spur
the whole housing market, not just rental units, but private units as
well. Certainly that has not been a trend
we have seen in the last year or two.
* (1540)
Mr.
Alcock: Well, I am sorry that we have taken the
discussion in that particular direction.
If we want to debate economic performance in this province, we can for
some period of time. I was simply asking
the question about how the department went about determining when a rental
increase was appropriate?
If the minister does not have an answer for
that question, she can say so.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, I would be pleased to address that. I just wanted to get the ad‑lib
preamble address, because I think sometimes the preambles are‑‑you
know, if you are wanting to drag Estimates out, that is a good way to do it is
to put in those kinds of preambles. Not
that I am suggesting that you are wanting to drag Estimates out at all, but I
would be pleased to come back if you would give me just a minute with an answer
on that, because I see a signal. [interjection!
Yes, I overheard that one comment just now,
and I was delighted to hear it. It was
just so opposite to what I heard the other night that I am very pleased you
have changed your mind on that.
The member is probably aware, having done the
research that he has done on this issue, that the rent guidelines arise out of a
formula. The formula does include things
like operating costs, capital costs.
There is an economic adjustment factor in that formula, which is the
only part of the formula that allows for a small bit of flexibility. That small bit of flexibility is very small
indeed.
At that point then, people could look at
efficiencies and that type of thing.
Definitely operating costs, capital costs and so on are in a formula
that is set aside and put into use each year as the rent guidelines are
decided. Those landlords and/or tenants
who do not like the guidelines can appeal and do appeal. We find on average that about 5 to 10 percent
of the landlords and 5 to 10 of the tenants will appeal a particular guideline.
I think the guidelines are very well pegged,
because in most cases, for example, landlords appealing, it is a very small percentage
who do appeal. Only 5 to 10 percent
appeal, which is a very small percentage.
Those have a high rate of winning those appeals, because they do not
tend to come forward unless they know they have a solid case they can win.
They will usually come forward with very
legitimate grounds to say, well, you said I can only charge a 3 percent
guideline but here is something that happened in my building last year that required
me to have to expend more than you have indicated in your formula. The department will say, we will look at that
and determine whether or not that is a legitimate factor to be taken into
consideration and may or may not grant an appeal for an increased guideline.
If the tenants do not like that increased
guideline, if the department says, well, you do have a case to be made, you
should be allowed to charge more than the 3 percent because of this peculiar
circumstance of yours, if the tenants object to that, they in turn then have
the right to come forward and say no, no, no, you know, the landlord said
this. However, we want to point out this
other factor, which may then have the department saying, well, then 3 percent
is all you are going to get.
Mr.
Alcock: I think, at least in the ones that I have
been involved in, the process is initiated by the landlords to the extent that
they make it a decision to apply for a rental increase above the
guideline. That 5 to 10 percent of
landlords and tenants tend to be more tightly locked. I do not recall a single case that I have had
where a tenant has appealed an at‑ or below‑guideline rent
increase. Can the minister tell us
whether there have been any?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I am just checking to see. Yes, I am pleased to advise the member that,
yes, indeed tenants have requested appeals when the rent guidelines are at or
below the guideline.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, how many appeals were
there in total this year?
(Mr.
Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mrs.
McIntosh: This past year, in total, 809. Do you want more information than that?
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, I
would. I would like to know, of the 809,
how many of them were appealing increases above the guideline.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Our information is not recorded with above guideline
or below guideline. It is not recorded
in that way.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am
curious. I made the statement that in my
experience no one that has dealt with me has ever appealed a rental increase
that was at or below the guideline.
However, the minister said that a lot of people did, and I would like to
know, of the 809, how many did?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, of the
people the member for Osborne has dealt with, he has not had this experience. I do not think he has probably dealt with
quite as many people as the branch have dealt with. They do, in their memory, have the experience
of dealing with tenants who have appealed decisions that are at or below the
suggested guideline.
What I do not have for the member is the
exact number that were acted upon in this way.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do wish to
assure the minister that there is no question about that whatsoever. The
department does deal with more rental appeals than I do, thank God. I find, for the most part, the department
deals with them quite efficiently, effectively and that the staff are, by and
large, quite helpful as people are trying to access information.
What I am wanting to know‑‑and I
understand the minister saying that she does not have this information, that
she knows that somewhere in the memory of the department somebody actually appealed
a rental increase that was below the guideline, but she cannot tell us how many
of those took place in this 809. I suspect
that this is such a trivial point that we should not spend a whole lot more
time on it.
* (1550)
But then let us come at it this way. Of the 809 that she does know something
about, how many of them were initiated by landlords?
Mrs.
McIntosh: The 809 is the number for landlords. The total number‑‑and I am sorry
if I just gave the total number for landlords if you were looking for the total
number for all appeals‑‑for all appeals was 1,300, and the total
number for landlords was 809.
Mr.
Alcock: Now, that 809 initiated by landlords, when a tenant‑‑I
mean, a landlord will come in and say, I want an increase above the guideline
and they will serve notice to the tenants in the building within a certain time
frame that they are about to do that.
When the tenants say, yes, we wish to appeal this, is that counted
within that 809 cases or is that over and above? Is that part of the 1,300?
Mrs.
McIntosh: That 809 is from the landlord. There were 357 from tenants, and there were
147 that fit the situation you describe.
It is from both parties for the same unit of appeal.
Mr.
Alcock: Then the 357 from tenants, would they be
appealing increases over the guideline?
Mrs.
McIntosh: They would be appealing the increase as
applied to them either below, at or above the guideline, whichever it is that
they are wishing to see changed.
Mr.
Alcock: Let us just leave that one for one second to
come back to my original reason for going into this line of questioning, but I
find that kind of interesting and I will come back to this 147 in a
minute. The 809 initiated by landlords, how
many of them were successful?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I do not have the exact number that the member
is asking for here, but I can tell him that it is in about 80 percent that are
successful in their appeal. About 5
percent of the landlords appeal, and about 80 percent of that 5 percent are successful
in their appeal. I do not have the exact
figure here. It is not broken down quite
the way he has asked for the information, but I think that general ballpark
figure may give him the feel that he is looking for.
Mr.
Alcock: Of those, how many of them are asking for an increase
above the guideline because of capital improvements for renovations?
Mrs.
McIntosh: We do not keep the appeals listed in that
form.
Mr.
Alcock: But you do have that kind of information
because when they file an appeal the‑‑
Mrs.
McIntosh: That could be done via a manual search of each
file because that information would be part of the record. It would require a manual search of each file
to pull it out.
Mr.
Alcock: Do you want to recess while we do that?
Mrs.
McIntosh: We would let the Estimates clock keep
ticking?
Mr.
Alcock: Sure.
I am actually interested in that, and I realize that we are not going to
get to that answer today. I am wondering,
though, rather than belabour things here on this particular point, whether the
minister would undertake to provide me with that information at such time as
she has been able to assemble it.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Would the member be good enough to clarify for
me exactly what he is looking for? My
staff is here, and I will ascertain to provide that for him, but I would like
to be just a little clearer on exactly what it is he would like us to pull out of
the files.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the minister
has stated there were 809 requests for increases above the guideline, initiated
by landlords in the last year, and what I would like to know is, of those 809,
how many of those requests for increases were justified on the basis of
extraordinary capital costs, re‑equipping, capital improvements,
renovations, painting, et cetera?
Mrs.
McIntosh: For clarification, do you mean that their
appeal would be granted just on this with no operating costs or‑‑?
Mr.
Alcock: I would like to know: In how many of these 809 was the request made
where the capital improvements, ones that are subject to the depreciation
allowances that we have discussed already, that exist in regulation, were a
factor in the request for the above guideline increase?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Were a factor but not the sole determining
factor?
Mr.
Alcock: I want to know what the landlord cited, as
opposed to what the decision was of the department.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I think that my deputy has that written down,
and we will endeavour to get you that information.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, to come back to
the 357 tenants who initiated an appeal without the landlord's having issued a
request. If I understand this correctly,
what the minister is saying is that 357 tenants appealed their rental increase
without the landlord's having requested an above‑guideline increase. Is that correct?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, those 357
tenant appeals are the appealing of decisions based on a decision for a rent
increase that would be at or above or below the guideline, and initiated by the
tenant who does not like the particular rent increase for whatever reason, and
there are many reasons.
Mr.
Alcock: So of the 357 these would be rent increases
that the landlord had sent out a notice saying:
the guideline is 3 percent; I am charging 3 percent. A number of people would appeal that
increase, even though it was at the guideline.
So that would account for some of the 357.
Mrs.
McIntosh: It could be, yes.
Mr.
Alcock: Now, for rent increases above the guideline,
to have the landlord in a position of charging a rent increase above the guideline,
the landlord would have served notice of their intention to do so?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes.
Mr.
Alcock: But in this circumstance, you are saying that
the landlord would not be part of the 809, because the landlord may have been
granted it by the department and is not appealing it? They are quite happy with
the department's position on their rental increase, but the tenants say: No, we think this is above the guideline, so
we want to appeal this? That is why they
are not, also, relating to the same landlords.
Presumably, these 357 people are dealing with landlords that are other
than the ones in the 809 appeals.
* (1600)
Mrs.
McIntosh: Those 357 are not necessarily responding to
the 809.
Mr.
Alcock: Just to clarify this, as I understood, the
previous answer was the 357 were not part of the 809, that there were 147 that
were. These 357 are initiating appeals
that have nothing to do with the 809 landlords.
So they are initiating appeals, presumably, in disputes or discussions
with other landlords.
Mrs.
McIntosh: That is correct.
Mr.
Alcock: Now, before I finish this, just to clarify,
when we say that there have been 809 appeals by landlords, when you count an
appeal, if a building has 50 units, does that count as 50 appeals, or are we
talking about 809 separate buildings?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, the landlord appeals the number of
units. If he has a 50‑apartment building, then that would be 50.
Mr.
Alcock: So conceivably if there were an 809‑unit
building in the province, we might have only one landlord who is being contested
here?
Mrs.
McIntosh: That is right.
Mr.
Alcock: Similarly, with the 357, those could be a
group of tenants having got together within one building, that are contesting
that they get counted in that fashion?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, I am advised that could be so.
Mr.
Alcock: Now, of those 357‑‑
The
Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): The honourable member for
Osborne.
Mr.
Alcock: Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am
sorry. I do not mean to rush, although I
am trying to expedite the process, as is my practice in the House to try to
move things to help the government along as quickly as I possibly can.
(Mr.
Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Of the 357 then, the minister has made the
case that a portion of those are appealing‑‑the landlords sent them
a notice saying it is 3 percent; we are charging you 3 percent. They do not like that, and they are going to
appeal it. A portion of them are saying
the landlords sent them a notice that the guideline is 3 percent and they are
raising it by 10 percent, and they are saying they do not like that and they
are going to appeal that. A portion of
the landlords sent them a notice saying, it is 3 percent, but he is only going
to charge them 2 percent, and a portion of them are appealing that.
Can you divide that 357 up among those three
groups?
Mrs.
McIntosh: It is technically possible, but staff would
have to go back to source documents.
While it is possible, I do not think it is probable that it would occur.
Mr.
Alcock: Oh.
Mrs.
McIntosh: I do not think people would come forward with
that kind of request.
Mr.
Alcock: That gets back to my opening statement on
that particular point. You are going to
give me the stuff on capital. A second
area that came up in at least two appeals that I was involved in, was this
question of improvements, capital improvements, to a building or unit or
whatever. The question came up about the
nature of the relationship between the landlord and the person supplying the
repairs.
For example, in one instance in particular
where the tenants had done an enormous amount of work, what appeared to have happened
was that the landlord had contracted for a considerable amount of repairs‑‑repairs
to the roof, painting, repairs to the lockers, parking lot, all of that sort of
thing‑‑had contracted for that work, had been billed for that work,
and had paid for that work. Those
payments, those receipts were part of the evidence that was supplied in support
of this rather large rent increase, but the person who had billed the landlord
was the landlord himself, in another company, where he had basically hired
himself as the contractor to do all this work.
There was a great deal of question about the legitimacy of that,
particularly since the amounts charged for particular items did seem to be somewhat
out of scale.
I am wondering whether or not it is a policy
of the department to prevent such practices or whether that is a circumstance
that both arises more than this one unusual circumstance basis and is
encompassed within department policy?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I should indicate first of all that, no, we
do not encourage landlords to bilk the tenant, so to speak, which is what you
are implying. It is not a policy of the
department to encourage the landlord to bilk the tenant. I do not think it ever has been the policy
and it will never be the policy, and nor do we encourage tenants to abuse
landlords. So let us get that clear.
Then I will say that we do permit landlords to
do work for themselves in terms of painting the building or whatever the renovations
or chores were. The only thing the
department stipulates in their examination of the papers in the background that
comes forward is that the amounts must be accurate and they must be fair and
reasonable in terms of marketplace prices.
Similarly we will allow sweat equity, for
example, of a new landlord who is doing, not necessarily a new landlord, but of
a landlord who is doing his own repair and is‑‑pardon? We will allow that sweat equity, it is not a
very large amount that we will allow, but we do take it into consideration
because that is labour performed, for which if he had to hire someone from outside,
he would have to pay a certain wage.
Mr.
Alcock: I will forgo rising to the minister's
responses. I am pleased to see that the
department is operating on the side of truth and beauty, and I suspect it always
was the case.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Pleased to hear you acknowledge that.
Mr.
Alcock: The question, the real question here is, on
what basis, what scale do you apply to this?
In the one case in particular that I spent a great deal of time on, the
amounts billed by the company were quite out of line with the amount you could
purchase the goods for, and evidence was produced to that effect. The amount that you could contract with
somebody else‑‑I mean, I could understand if a landlord goes out
and says, well, I got this quote from X painting company and they are going to charge
me $1,000 to paint it, and I am prepared to paint it for $800, but I want
recognition for that. I have no
difficulty with that.
What I have difficulty with is when the company
says it will paint it for $1,000 and the landlord paints it and charges you $2,000. I am wondering about the steps that the
branch takes to determine the acceptability of the charges that are made?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I first have a question for the member and
then I will provide him with the answer.
This was one case that you worked with where the amount the company
charged was excessive. I am just wondering what action was taken at that time?
I am presuming that if you were working with
this case, and the amount the company charged was excessive, that you took some
action on behalf of the person excessively charged. I am curious to know what the department did
when you went to them with this particular case and gave them the specific
details. How did they respond in that
instance? I would be interested in
knowing.
Mr.
Alcock: They allowed the landlord the increase,
despite the fact‑‑I mean, just to go through it a bit, because it
surprised me. It was one of the early
cases shortly after I became elected. I
was approached by a group of tenants in a small block that, as it turned out, a
couple of them had been there for quite a long time. The block had recently changed hands and the
new landlord was renovating. As it also
turned out, one of them was a law student who had a great deal of energy, and
together they actually went down and they made lists of all the stuff, all the door
handles that were put on and all the wood that was used and they actually went
and priced it all at local suppliers.
The tenants went out and asked painters to give them quotes on what it
would cost to paint the areas that were painted or repair the roof, et cetera,
et cetera.
* (1610)
In virtually all cases the amounts charged by
the landlord, I felt and certainly on the evidence now charged by the landlord
in his guise as repairperson to himself and his guise as landlord of this
building, were well above the rate that you could access a similar service
for. This was pointed out to the
department I thought rather clearly.
Yet, I believe now, just to be absolutely fair on this point‑‑I
do not have the file in front of me‑‑that one unit in the place got
a slight decrease in the rent. It was a
three‑storey walkup, and I think one basement unit got a decrease in the
rent. In all other cases, the rent increases
were allowed and it surprised me. I was
startled at the time.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be interested
in receiving more specific details, you know, something a little more specific
than just "way more expensive than," which to me what is "way
more expensive than"? It really
does not tell me anything. But just in
answer to your question, the way in which we would determine the costs are
exactly the way in which you describe in that we would go out and we would
ascertain the real costs.
I am very surprised here that there was this
great discrepancy that you describe, and only one rental unit having the rents
adjusted given the factors as you describe them. The only thing I can say, not being familiar
with the case‑‑when it was, where it took place, or any of the
details except for the generalized comments you have made‑‑is that
obviously the people obtaining the costs, your law students obtaining the
costs, must have gone to a different store than our department obtaining costs
and there was a disagreement over the facts or a dispute over the facts. I would appreciate more details on that
specific case.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will take the
minister at her word and supply that. I
will make an appointment to see her and bring the file at some point, because I
was genuinely puzzled by this one. The
debates about whether 49 percent gross profit is acceptable, and 50 is not, or
51 is not, or whatever are, are more public policy debates that may differ over
time, but this one just struck me as a fairly straight‑up case of
somebody not operating at arm's length and doing some things that did seem to be
a rather questionable practice. I felt
that the department did not use the kind of scrutiny that I would have
expected. I will follow through on that.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Would the member be good enough to repeat his last
sentence. I am sorry, I did not hear it.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will take the
minister up on her offer once we have the Estimates behind us and a little breathing
room. This was a case that is some 18
months old or so now. So we can sit down
at a more leisurely time and go through it, but I will do that because I think
it would be interesting for the minister to become more aware of the
circumstances and just to give us an opportunity to look at some of these
cases.
In my experience, and I, as the minister,
would be aware, given that I represent all of those apartment blocks that you
can see from this window, get involved in rent disputes on a fairly regular
basis. I will say that most of them are
dealt with I think rather appropriately by the department.
I think most tenants realize that costs are
going to go up, because they know their own costs are going up. It is just when they get into circumstances
where there does not seem to be a solid rationale. A lot of the tenants in these blocks here are
older and more permanent.
This is where this question of if you are
allowing inflation or you are allowing an increase in costs because of a
capital costs allowance, then surely you are going to take that of the base
rate and all of those disputes or those discussions, but we will come to that
at some point after this.
I have just one final area that I would like
to ask a couple of questions about, and then I will be prepared to pass this line. I do not know whether the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale) wishes to carry on a vigorous discussion on this particular
line of the Estimates, however, I am prepared to let it go. It is the relationship between Manitoba
Housing and the Consumer and Corporate Affairs rent regulation branch.
Now, I understand on the rental side of it,
there is not really a question, because anybody that is in subsidized housing is
paying a rent that is a proportion of income, so that rental increases are
calculated on that basis, and the rental guidelines really do not apply. I am wondering if there is any other relationship
though between the department and Manitoba Housing units? Do they exercise any regulatory supervision
or control of any sort?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all the other provisions
of the act do apply except for the rent control.
Mr.
Alcock: So on what, security deposit payments? Are items of that sort subject to the same
and will be subject to that under this new bill?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Consumers' Bureau: (1) Salaries $914,100‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $118,200.
2.(b) Residential Tenancies Branch: (1) Salaries $2,213,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $405,400‑‑pass.
2.(c) Grants $76,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 17:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,727,500
for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Consumer Affairs, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
We will now move on to Item 3. Corporate
Affairs, (a) Corporation Branch: (1)
Salaries $874,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $513,700‑‑pass.
3.(b) Insurance Branch: (1) Salaries $343,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $72,800‑‑pass.
3.(c) Manitoba Securities Commission: (1) Salaries $1,256,600.
Mr.
Doug Martindale (Burrows): I would like to ask the minister to pass on
her greetings to the director of the Manitoba Securities Commission. I understand he is ill, and I know him to be
a fine gentleman. If you could pass on
our greetings, I would appreciate that, thank you.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be delighted
to do that, and I know that the chairman will be pleased, indeed, to receive
those greetings.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: 3.(c) Manitoba Securities Commission: (1)
Salaries $1,256,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $125,600‑‑pass.
3.(d) Public Utilities Board: (1) Salaries $606,800‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $1,564,200.
3.(e) Trust, Loan and External Financial
Services: (1) Salaries $396,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $88,100‑‑pass.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, did I hear the word
"Public Utilities Board" being discussed?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We have already passed by that two lines ago,
the honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
We are now dealing with 3.(f)
Regulations: (1) Salaries $537,900.
Mr.
Alcock: I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could you
repeat what you said we were dealing with?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: We are dealing with 3.(f) Regulations: (1)
Salaries $537,900.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the regulations under
the Public Utilities Board?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Would you repeat that question, please?
Mrs.
McIntosh: Into the mike, I cannot hear you very well.
Mr.
Alcock: Are these regulations under the Public
Utilities Board?
* (1620)
Mrs.
McIntosh: I would not think so. We are past the Public Utilities Board, we
are talking about‑‑
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: No, we have passed that already (f) Regulations: (1) Salaries.
Mr.
Alcock: (f) Regulations under what section?
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Page 27, (f) Regulations: (1) Salaries $537,900.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, could you reference
the page number in the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review? This
will take but a second.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for Osborne, he had a
question?
Mr.
Alcock: I asked, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if the
minister could reference the page within the Supplementary Information for Legislative
Review.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Yes, page 34.
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just had one
question on this. Recently there was
some action taken with the Assiniboine Credit Union relative to the board of
the Assiniboine Credit Union. There was
some election of people to the board of Assiniboine Credit Union that raised
some questions?
An
Honourable Member: Yes, did they take control?
Mr.
Alcock: That is my question to the minister. If an outside political lobby group has taken
control of the board of the Assiniboine Credit Union, I have to ask the
question, (a) did that happen, and (b)‑‑
An
Honourable Member: Yes, how dare they. Let us get our money out of there.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Could I have a little quiet, so that the honourable member for Osborne
could have his question put forward?
Mr.
Alcock: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I simply want to ask
a question. I mean I knew that this line
was coming up and this is purely for information. I have nothing behind this, other than I noticed
information was brought forward recently that a particular political lobby has
initiated some activity that resulted in their taking control of the board of a
very large credit union, the Assiniboine Credit Union
The question simply is whether or not, given
the nature and size of the financial institution, the government has had an opportunity
to look at that event. It may be simply
that a number of very interested, qualified people were brought to that board,
but if the activities were simply the intention to push a particular political
agenda, then I would assume that this branch of the department would have some
interest in that. I would just like to
get a sense from the minister as to what action has arisen as a result of that
activity.
Mrs.
McIntosh: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the member
for his question. I understand that they
have had an election. They do have some
new people on that particular credit union, and I understand, I have been
informed from people out there, that some of these new members belong to
CHOICES. The Credit Unions and Caisses
Populaires Act does apply. The
Stabilization Fund which monitors and is the watchdog of the credit unions and
the caisses populaires will monitor, as they do on a consistent basis, the activities
of credit union boards to ensure that all the regulatory frameworks are being
appropriately dealt with.
This was an election that took place with
people voting as they do in a standard electoral process.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item (f) Regulations: (1) Salaries $537,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $34,200‑‑pass.
Resolution 18:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$6,414,800 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Corporate Affairs, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
The last item to be considered for the
Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is item (a) Minister's
Salary. At this point we would request
that the minister's staff leave the table for consideration of this item. Item
1.(a)‑‑
Mr.
Martindale: I would like to make a few comments for the record
and then ask one question.
The reason for my not asking any questions
today is that in our caucus we divided up our hours and, in fact, I was over my
hours by about half an hour the last day we were in these Estimates. Since we in our caucus understand the meaning
of co‑operation and solidarity, any questions I would have asked today
would be taking time away from my colleagues, and I chose not to do that.
However, I think that the minister knows that
I am very interested in all Housing issues including Housing legislation, and I
think my record in previous Estimates and in the House in Question Period
proved that.
Although the minister and I may have political
and philosophical difference, I have always found this minister to be very co‑operative. So my final question is: If I submit questions in writing, would the
minister endeavour to respond to them?
Mrs.
McIntosh: I would be pleased to do that for the member,
and I should indicate in return, the member is quite right. He and I may not always agree on the
substance of the issues, because we do have a different way of looking at the
world, but I must say that the member for Burrows has been consistent
throughout his tenure as my critic in bringing forward issues that are consistent,
that are of concern to him. [interjection! Well, it is true. Just as he has complimented me, I in turn
compliment him. While we do not always
agree, I do appreciate the communication we have had and would be pleased to
answer any questions that he might have after Estimates. I understand the need to have the time fairly
split, and I appreciate that, in fact.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Burrows‑‑and
I should not be surprised‑‑in his closing remarks made some
reference, and I did want to make quick reference to that prior to going to the
minister. That is, that he tries to say
that he has been very co‑operative with his colleagues in his own caucus
and so forth. Well, we have also been
extremely co‑operative through all of the departments, and all members
have a right to ask questions of this particular minister, and I caution him of
that because‑‑
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I have just a little bit of decorum
within the committee room. I will ask
the honourable member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, through the Chair,
that one's holidays should not take priority over what is going on inside this
Chamber or inside this committee room.
Even though there might be some questions that the opposition and the government
take exception to that are put forward, whether it is in the Estimates, whether
it is during concurrence, or whether it is debate on bills, those questions and
debates are needed and we have an opportunity to put them forward and a
responsibility to do just that.
So I know that the minister was wanting to see
her department pass, and we too want to see the department pass. After all, there are a number of things that
are going on in Culture, Heritage and Citizenship that need to be
addressed. I do take exception to the
remarks put on the record from the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale),
because, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there has been a lot of co‑operation
from all three parties, or I should say, the Liberals and the Conservative‑NDP
coalition the last couple of days.
Mr.
Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just for
clarification, my remarks were not intended in any way as a criticism of the very
legitimate questions that the three members from the Liberal caucus asked this
afternoon. It was only an explanation as
to why I have not asked any questions for the last hour, hour and a half, since
it may look rather strange for the NDP Housing critic not to ask any questions
for an hour and a half. It has absolutely
nothing to do with summer holidays.
I would also point out that the member for
* (1630)
Mr.
Cheema: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wanted to add
several remarks also. I just watched the
unholy alliance between the Tories and the NDP for the last two days also. It is very surprising how they think things
are functioning in this House. But I do not think, as the member for
If we are trying to speed up the process, and
I think there may be many underlying reasons and some of them I do not want to put
on the record. But I am sure the media
is going to know that, because there are many factors that are going to
contribute to when we should get out and when we should come. Two years ago in a minority government, those
kinds of things were never said. Now the question is rather, you know, the
rural members want to sit more than 90 days because they are getting extra
funding and extra money and those things‑‑I am sure, there are some
concerns there. I do not want to put any
blame, but I just want to put those things on the record. It is very important that people should know
how this House is being operated.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance (a) Minister's
Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 16:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$1,088,500 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Administration and Finance, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
This completes the Estimates for the
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The next set of Estimates that will be considered by this section of the
Committee of Supply are the Estimates for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Shall we briefly recess to allow the minister
and the critics the opportunity to commence the next set of Estimates?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: No, the minister is here.
CULTURE, HERITAGE AND CITIZENSHIP
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Consideration of the Estimates
for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, does the minister responsible have an
opening statement?
Hon.
Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): It
is indeed a pleasure to introduce the Estimates for Manitoba Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship. My department is charged
with two areas of responsibility. One is
for encouraging, strengthening and supporting the cultural, multicultural,
immigration, settlement, heritage and recreational initiatives within the
province. The other is to serve the Legislative
Assembly, government departments and agencies and the people of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship is committed
to ensuring this province enjoys the benefits of these resources which support
our lifestyles. We will continue to
bring increased focus to the unifying benefits of multiculturalism. We intend to support realistic protection and
careful development of our heritage. We
intend to provide humane and progressive assistance in the settlement of
immigrants to
In the current economy, it is often necessary
to review priorities, redirect resources, change departmental emphasis, revise
existing programs, create new initiatives and alter the communication paths
between government and the people of
Our government responded to the changing
nature of
The development of the new Immigrant
Credentials and Labour Market Branch, which will act on the recommendations of
this report, is evidence of the importance that the province places on the
recommendations. This new branch has
begun what will be a lengthy process of establishing a data bank that will
facilitate a central directory having information available to better assist degree‑granting
institutions in establishing equivalencies for offshore degrees.
We have begun meeting with agencies to develop
agreements that will mean changes in how they establish such equivalencies. We
have begun to establish support groups for those who may be having difficulties
establishing themselves within their professions. This branch has a business component that
will work with Industry, Trade and Tourism to provide settlement support for
immigrant businesses. Our goal will be
to help entrepreneurial immigrants adjust to the differences in Canadian business
practices.
We have established a new process for the
identification of the skills that will be part of the designated occupations
list for the coming year. This process
allows for more input from the private sector and will result in a
The restructuring of the division will see
changes in the responsibilities of all its branches. The immigration policy branch will work steadfastly
to negotiate an immigration agreement with the federal government. We believe such an agreement will give us
greater control over immigration to the
The Settlement and Adult Language Training
branch provides cross‑cultural consulting, co‑ordination of ESL
teaching support and professional development language training and improved access
for immigrants to government programs and services. It will work actively, in co‑operation
with our federal counterparts, to develop a made‑in‑Manitoba ESL
training strategy. This consultation
process to respond to the new federal language training policy has already
begun, and we hope to have a position agreed to by all parties by December.
As well, this branch will incorporate the
skills of the staff at Immigrant Access Service to work actively with
government departments to make them more responsive to the needs of the immigrant
community. We are developing projects
with both the Department of Justice and the Department of Highways to this end.
The Citizenship Support Services branch will
continue to provide support to ethnocultural communities to facilitate the process
of applying for appropriate grants and to provide settlement information and co‑ordination
for the antiracism initiative. We are
confident this new Citizenship Division will help us to better support new
immigrants to
* (1640)
The resources of these new Canadians cannot be
overlooked if we are to maximize their contributions in the future. However, the adaptation process can be
difficult. In recognition that special
measures may be required by some ethnocultural groups, we announced a new
funding program, Bridging Cultures, to provide assistance. This program has four goals: family education, citizenship promotion,
combatting racism and joint projects to encourage the ethnocultural community
to work together with other human services agencies. Thirteen projects were funded this year. I am pleased to announce that we will be
renewing this program this year, as we strengthen the choices that are available
to ethnocultural communities.
We know that an important goal in the
integration and settlement process is to ensure that racism is not tolerated in
Manitoban society. The government has
shown strong leadership and commitment to antiracism initiatives through the
appointment of an antiracism co‑ordinator. This position will provide support for action
within government.
As the result of a two‑year‑long
project with the Manitoba Federation of Labour, a series of modules have been
developed dealing with racism in the workplace.
The Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship piloted these
modules with very exciting results. The
initial workshops resulted in the identification of the desire to have, within
our department, a respectful workplace charter, which is now being developed.
Because of the very positive response,
additional training programs are being scheduled in the department, and the
Civil Service Commission is now expanding the module and offering it to all
departments. The commission is also
developing an antiracism policy for
We must continue to identify and meet new
challenges while dealing effectively with ongoing issues and concerns of importance
to the community. Our ongoing
demonstrated commitment to multiculturalism continues to be seen in the work of
my department.
Fulfilling one of the initiatives we undertook
in announcing
I am especially honoured to have introduced
Bill 98, The Manitoba Multiculturalism Act, on June 8, 1992. This fulfills the commitment we made on May
15, 1990, to establish our multicultural policy in a legislative framework.
This act follows consultations I held with
multicultural umbrella organizations and various individuals, and reflects the thoughts
and ideas expressed. I want, publicly
and personally, right now, on the record, to thank all of those who took the
time to meet with me to share their views and their suggestions. These are
individuals who devote their time so freely to the community, contributing to
our quality of life in
These consultations also raised very important
issues regarding the Manitoba Intercultural Council and its legislation. A strong consensus emerged that the MIC
needed to be carefully and fully examined as to its role, its mandate and its
structure. It was also clear, however,
that there was no one answer to these issues.
Many suggested that we engage an external, independent consultant to
conduct such a review and report back.
We have, therefore, appointed a consultant to
conduct research and consultations to assess the role, the mandate and the
structure of the Manitoba Intercultural Council, and make recommendations
thereon, including any necessary amendments to The Manitoba Intercultural
Council Act. I look forward to hearing
the thoughts and the views of a broad cross section of Manitobans, and to
consider such advice and make any necessary amendments to The MIC Act prior to
its next biennial assembly in 1993.
Our government and my department have been
keenly aware of the importance of the arts in
In response to their findings and
recommendations, we have redefined the mandate of the previous Cultural
Resources branch. After reorganization, it is now known as the Arts
Branch. The reorganization involved the
transfer of some responsibilities among the new Arts Branch, the Manitoba Arts
Council, and the Multicultural Grants Advisory Council. The Arts Branch will support community‑based
development of arts activity. The Manitoba
Arts Council will continue to support professional arts endeavours. The Multicultural Grants Advisory Council
will support ethnocultural organizations whose programs are not specific to the
arts.
To better address the needs of
At this point, I would like to commend and
thank the staff within my department, within the Cultural Resources branch, who
consulted broadly, of course, with the Manitoba Arts Council, with the
Multicultural Grants Advisory Council, and with all Manitobans who had an
interest in ensuring that the recommendations that were outlined in the Arts
Policy Review could be implemented in a satisfactory manner. I think the whole community, the arts
community throughout the
* (1650)
Other arts‑related items in the
Estimates do include an increase in capital grants of $4 million. This funding will provide for much‑needed
repairs to the exteriors of the Centennial Concert Hall and the
Over the 20 years, and I suppose successive
governments, there was no major capital commitment to those facilities and to those
institutions. It was a need that was
recognized and we made a commitment. I
think we are living up to that commitment by proceeding with much badly‑needed
repairs.
Of course, the structural problems that were
faced by the museum and the Centennial Concert Hall were over and above what we
had anticipated might need to be done.
The exterior cladding on both of those buildings, after a consultant had
looked at the buildings, clearly indicated that there could be threats to public
safety, and there was an immediate need to deal with these buildings and try to
undertake the repairs within, I suppose, limitations, dollar limitations that
we had available, and ensure that the immediate repairs that posed threats to
public safety would be addressed immediately with a long‑term, multiyear commitment
to ensuring that the needed work was done.
The exterior repairs to the Concert Hall will
be completed in the fiscal year of 1992‑93, this year. We will be commencing work this year on
repairs to the
We do know that we have a very vibrant
cultural community, something that we as Manitobans should be extremely proud
of. In order to maintain the excellence
that we do have with the ballet and the symphony and the theatre, and to
attract major events and venues to our province, we do need to have a concert
hall that is up to standard and up to par, not only for the customers' comfort,
I suppose, but also in the areas of sound systems and the most up‑to‑date
technology possible to attract as tourism events those things that we have
seen, with Les Miz being here for the third time this summer and Phantom of the
Opera scheduled for next year. Also, the
upgrading of the wheelchair accessibility will allow for more Manitobans to be
able to attend activities at our concert hall and attend our museum.
When we look at our cultural institutions we
cannot ignore those that are outside the city of
These Estimates also provide for an increase
in grants for cultural industries in the film and sound production areas. This increase recognizes the dramatic growth
and real potential that these sectors have for both
Most recently, for instance, with a $400,000
investment from CIDO,
I think all of us were aware that two location
shots were made in the
I do know that we have much to boast as a
result of our cultural industries in the film production, and the calibre of the
films that have been produced right here in
We have a significant increase in our budget
line this year as a result of our government's commitment to maintaining what
we have seen happen in the past and looking forward to a very positive future
for film in
Our department is assessing also the need for
improved library services in rural and northern
They have done major consultation throughout
the province and they have, I think, in its final stages, a report that will be
making recommendations to government very shortly on how we can begin to
address the needs of all Manitobans through our library delivery system.
The relocation of Public Library Services to
While the government has restructured the
manner in which we distribute funds to the heritage community, our global
commitment remains unchanged. I have
established a number of key objectives to guide us through the decision‑making
process on what kind of a structure will be put into place to serve the
community's needs.
In particular, our government is committed to
maintain the traditional level of support to the Heritage Community while reducing
the administrative overhead and applying the savings to direct grants to
Heritage. I am also committed to put in
place a representative volunteer advisory committee to guide the decision‑making
process.
I have also sought the advice of members of
the heritage community in a review of the program to ensure an accountable program
design, streamlined to meet the needs of applicants and the needs of the
province. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, our government
is committed to support local government's ability to strengthen the local
economy through the provision of services which enhance a community's
attractiveness.
The new provincial recreation policy announced
last fall outlines our government's recognition of its importance and our commitment
to furthering the development of recreational opportunities for Manitobans in
every community. The fall announcement
revealed the introduction of a new Recreation Opportunities Program to replace
the Recreation District Grant Program.
This new program expands access to northern municipalities and has been
developed to better meet the needs of rural communities. I am very proud of the fact‑‑
* (1700)
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
The time is now 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour.
I am interrupting these proceedings. This Committee of Supply will resume
consideration at 8 p.m.
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam
Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. 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 Highways and
Transportation. We are on item 2, Operations
and Maintenance (c) Operations and Contracts, page 93 of the budget Estimates
manual.
Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Item 2.(c) Operations and Contracts.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I believe I will let that section pass.
Madam Chairperson: Okay.
Item 2.(c)(1) Salaries and Wages $1,952,400‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $342,800‑‑pass.
2.(d) Bridges and Structures: (1) Salaries $1,846,300.
Mr.
Reid: Item 2.(d), Madam Chairperson, a question for
the minister: There is a decrease of one
staff here; can the minister tell me what the individual who was under Professional/Technical
support staff, what that person's duties and responsibilities were? Where did that person work? When were they let go?
Hon.
Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the member
could clarify which question he is asking.
While we are getting that established, I would
like to put some information on the record that I had undertaken to do the other
day which had to do with the staffing complement. The question was raised as to the female
employment aspect of it, as well as the native employment and the visible
minority aspect of it. I want to
indicate that basically we have the summary of female employment and
nontraditional female occupations by functional category. In 1988, we had a total of 45 female employees. In 1991, we have a total of 64 which are in
the nontraditional female occupations, which basically indicates that we have
more female engineers coming on stream.
The three categories where we have the increases is natural sciences and
engineering from 16 employees to 23; and then the managerial and administrative
we have gone from five to nine; and in the regulatory one we have gone from 10
to 13; and in the program policy review we have gone from three to six, which I
think shows good trends in there.
* (1440)
On the total component, the female employment
aspect of it in March of '88 was 380; and in March of '91 we had 447 female employees. We had 99 native employees in 1988; and we
have 113 native employees now; and the visible minority we have 16 in March of
'88; and we have 25 at the present time.
So that gives the members a bit of an indication as to the distribution,
realizing of course the fact that in the Department of Highways and
Transportation much of the work actually is more labour oriented, I suppose,
and the male factor is much stronger in my department possibly than in
others. We have good trends developing
in there. So I just wanted to bring that
information forward, because the member raised it the other day.
Now the member also raised questions on
chemical and how much sodium chloride we used for the year '91‑92. Incidentally, that was supplied by K‑Way. We used a quantity of 39,464 tonnes at a cost
of $1,655,855. Summer dust control or
calcium chloride brine supplied by Tiger Chemical, we used 3,689,000
litres. The cost was $569,000. lignin sulfonate supplied by Prairie Road Management,
we used 1,133,000 litres, a value of $102,000; continuous dust treatment
calcium chloride supplied by General Chemical, we used just a shade over 7
million litres, the value being $1,800,000 approximately. I have rounded them off to some degree. Weed spraying, all weed control districts,
the cost was $268,000; brush spraying by contract was to the tune of $60,000. Those
were some of the questions that were raised by the member the other day.
If the member would want to now maybe clarify
the question that he raised on this other portion here, then I would be prepared
to try and see if I can get that information.
I did not quite get the question.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Chairperson, before I get to that
clarification of my question, I may have missed it in the minister's comments there. Could he indicate if those companies that he
has indicated where we buy our product from, are these Canadian companies?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, they are.
Mr.
Reid: I thank the minister for that.
To clarify my question that I had asked a bit
earlier under Bridges and Structures where we had a decrease in staff, one staff
person less this budget year over last year's budget year, and it comes out of
the Professional and Technical Support Staff.
To me, that has always been one of the more important areas of any of the
planning that takes place, because you have to rely a great deal‑‑at
least, my understanding of the minister's department, he has to rely a great
deal on professional and technical people's advice and opinions. Yet we see a decrease in one staff year in
that area.
Can the minister tell me who that individual
was, what their duties were, where did they work in the province and when were they
let go from their employment?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, first of all, we have a component
of 55 staff positions in the Bridges and Structures component.
(Mr.
Gerry McAlpine, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
We have a reduction of one, and I have to
indicate that we have an ongoing rationalization in terms of how we
operate. This was a vacant
position. As indicated in my remarks the
other day, invariably we are one of the departments that is challenged all the
time in terms of seeing whether we can operate more efficiently, so this was a
vacant position that was part of a target that I had to meet, and we deleted
that position.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister tell me where that vacant
position was?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not know exactly
which position it was out of the 55 that we deleted. I will try and get that detail. As I indicated before, this was a position that
was vacant, and I repeat again, as part of the process of meeting certain
targets, this was one position that was deleted.
Mr.
Reid: I would appreciate then if the minister does
not have it if he could supply it in the near future for us to have an idea of
where it was deleted from.
I have no further questions on this section.
The Acting Chairperson (Mr. McAlpine): Item 2.(d)(1) Salaries $1,846,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $133,100‑‑pass.
2.(d)(3) Bridge Maintenance $895,000‑‑
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Mr. Acting Chairperson, I wonder if the
minister can give some background to the move of the weigh scales which I
understand were recently moved to Letellier for trucks, and indicate why that
move was made. I am not aware specifically
what the reasons were. I am not in a
position to say whether it was a good idea or a bad idea.
Can the minister indicate how that came about?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to indicate to
the member that the reason for the temporary move to Letellier is because we
are doing the twinning of I‑29 at Emerson, and we have a new weigh scale
that is actually constructed already. We
are doing the accesses to it. Once we
have completed that whole stretch of twinning out there, then the weigh scale
is going to be located again just to the north of the customs office there. It
is just a temporary thing that has been done, and once we have completed the
project, we will be moving it back to Emerson.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, that certainly
explains it.
I wonder if the minister can indicate: Are the weigh scales to be located in
Emerson, after the twinning occurs, to be larger than the ones that existed
there before? Are they being upgraded and
enlarged as well as replaced?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I want to indicate to
the member, yes, it is going to be a new facility. It is going to be a much more modern facility
that we will be setting up there. I believe
the construction is completed already or in the process of almost being
completed. The contractor is out there
working. I was out there a little over a week ago. The work is in full progress in terms of
getting the completion done there. Once that
is done, we will have it set up and we will have a very, I think, state‑of‑the‑art
type of operation out there.
Mr.
Edwards: I simply raise that line of questions because
the minister had mentioned at our last sitting that that border crossing is the
fourth largest in
* (1450)
So, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I ask the
minister, flowing from that, is that a strategy of his as well, to make it
easier, make it more efficient and expedient for truck traffic to come through that
port of entry and to attempt to enhance and see, as a positive factor, the
truck traffic through the Emerson port?
Mr.
Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I think the analysis
of the member is relatively accurate in terms of the truck traffic in the last
years has been steadily escalating. As I
said in my opening comments, when I made the remark about it being the fourth
largest truck port of entry in
I want to indicate to the member that last
week was Transportation Week. We had
various functions, with all modes of transportation, that we were promoting the
idea of
With
We play a major role. We are the second biggest component in the
rail industry, next to
(Madam
Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I think that is an
excellent strategy. I understand and
recognize, and our party does, the importance, historically and I think as well
as the future is concerned, of the trucking industry to this city and this province.
I wonder if the minister can tell us whether
or not truck traffic generally in
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am trying to get some detailed
information that we have been working on in terms of impact of what is
happening.
Under truck mode‑‑I have the
So that is not necessarily the kind of trends
we would like to have, but I think that if we use good promotional work we can take
and turn that around.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I have other questions in
this area. I was on the understanding
that we were on sub 2.(e) Transport Compliance and that is why I was asking
these questions. My friend the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) tells me we never actually passed the Bridges and
Structures appropriations. Can you tell
me, are we still on 2.(d), because if so I will pass to 2.(e) so I can continue
my questioning in this respect and, therefore, it will be relevant.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(d)(3) Bridge Maintenance $895,000‑‑pass.
2.(e) Transport Compliance: (1) Salaries and Wages.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, with respect to the
document the minister has just read from, is he in a position, would he be able
to give me a copy of that document with those statistics?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that I
have no difficulty with the information that I have here. I will make copies available to both critics
within the next day or so just so that they can go through that, because there
is a fair amount of information that I think is pertinent, for example, the
fact that we have only 4 percent of the nation's population. We have 6 percent of the air sector
employment. We have 8 percent of the trucking
sector employment, and we have 13 percent of the rail sector employment. So in all three areas, we are doing better than,
based on the population figures. In
1982, for example, we had 11.4 percent of CN employment. We now have 14.4 percent of CN
employment. So I have a variety of
information here that probably I will make available to both critics.
Mr.
Edwards: I thank the minister. That will be useful information.
With respect to the objective under this
heading of Dangerous Goods Transportation programs relative to the trucking
industry's use of Manitoba's highways system, I wonder if the minister can comment
on the recent reports that‑‑and we discussed this briefly last time
we met‑‑contaminated soil was being trucked from the Remand Centre
and indeed from the North Portage Development out to the Perimeter Highway and
Inkster Boulevard. I am sure there are
other examples of where that type of dumping has taken place. The minister was going to check into that for
me. I note he does not have the answer
today on that, but I would still like to know whether or not, in the case of
the transportation of those loads to
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I will undertake to get
the details of how we do that when this happens. In checking, after we had our debate the
other day, we have very, very rare instances where this happens. In fact, we are trying to find out whether‑‑there
was a perception, I think, to some degree that this was an ongoing thing, that
this happens quite regularly. It happens
very rarely that we allow storage of contaminated soils, or whatever, on any of
our properties. It is very, very rare
and that is why I do not have the detailed information now.
I will check out the process together‑‑see
exactly how my colleague, the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), exactly what
is involved in the process itself when it is being transported.
Mr.
Edwards: Just on that point, and I look forward to
that information coming from the Minister of Highways, but can the minister
indicate whether or not the Crown and all the departments of the Crown indeed
are held to the requirement that they also obtain licences for the
transportation of dangerous goods under The Dangerous Goods Handling and
Transportation Act, as is required by Section 2 of that act?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that the
process that was used at the site at the intersection of
* (1500)
After placement, the soil must be turned at
regular intervals to provide for greater aeration. If the site selection is approved by Manitoba
Environment, the owner of the contaminated soil must receive the approval of
the property owner as well.
With respect to the placement of contaminated
soil on the west side and northeast corner of the intersection of
Mr.
Edwards: Can the minister indicate why in that instance
there was no notification of the R.M.? I
acknowledge they were not the property owners, but why were they not advised at
the time? If they were, can the minister
table documentation showing that, because the R.M. has been quoted as saying
that they were upset that they were not apprised?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, it is my understanding that
it would not be our responsibility to take and make contact with the municipality. It will be the Department of Environment that
basically would have to go through the clearance. We basically just follow the guidelines that
are set up, as I indicated and read into the record.
Mr.
Edwards: The only involvement that I can tell, from
what the minister just read, really, of the Department of Highways is that they
would be the owner of the property, I gather, and therefore their consent would
be required.
I agree it is not near a residential area, and
we can take this up with the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) when those
Estimates come up. But I wonder if the
minister can indicate whether or not he had any concerns that this soil was not
even posted as being contaminated soil, so that in the event that the public
were to come upon the site they would have notice of that.
It is probably not a well‑travelled
site, but it is certainly open to public access. It is on a major thoroughfare. I wonder if the minister can indicate whether
or not, in the normal course, his department would want to, on their property,
post notices, and if so, why it did not happen in this case.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that my colleague
the Minister of Environment has indicated he is prepared to give more details
on that.
But I, together with him, will try and get a
detailed process, from the environmental aspect of it, how they do it, what the
requirements are, and get that information.
Mr.
Edwards: The minister indicates that in this case his
only responsibility, the department's responsibility, as the owner of the land
was to consent to the‑‑[interjection! at the corner of
What does it mean then when the objective of
this area is to provide uniform compliance with the Dangerous Goods Transportation
programs? Are they involved in ensuring compliance
under that act of travel, of movement of dangerous goods?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate, under
this section here, we have our inspectors who basically do the inspections to
make sure that the vehicles, the trucks meet with or comply with, for example,
the National Safety Code.
In terms of the handling of the dangerous
goods, I do not know whether we play any role in that. That is basically under the Department of
Environment. I think the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings) just handed me some information here.
Madam Chairperson, I wonder if I could have my
colleague the Minister of Environment answer the question here at the same time
for the member's benefit.
Hon.
Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): If the committee agrees,
certainly the member might want to have me under Environment Estimates, but
regarding this particular site, it was the approval of the Department of
Environment. Perhaps we believe all of
the material was not heavily enough contaminated to be classified as
hazardous. The vast majority of it was
below any level that would have brought it into that category. Review was provided to make sure that there
was ground water protection at that site.
Sections 8 and 10, which are proclaimed effective at the end of this
month, obviously, did not come into play at that particular time under
transportation of dangerous goods.
So even though we felt that it was not a
compliance issue, in order to make sure that Government Services and the
Department of Highways were comfortable with this decision, we provided a review
and then provided the okay to proceed to use that site because there was a need
to move the material to make it so that the excavation was safe, and at the
same time ensure public safety as we relocated the material. In fact, the involvement of the Department of
Environment was to provide almost an overkill of responsibility, if you would,
and the note that I have from the Department of Environment says that the
municipality in fact was consulted.
I think that we have covered most of the bases
by which the member is questioning this decision. I would prefer to answer further in the
Department of Environment Estimates.
Mr. Reid:
I certainly will have other questions but will abeyance those until the
Department of Environment Estimates. It makes
more sense to do that, but I thank the minister for that response at this time.
Finally, for the Minister of Highways, can he
indicate whether or not the National Safety Code is being revised as time goes
on? Are there ongoing national
discussions to improve and review the National Safety Code? If so, does
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that we
have two areas under the National Safety Code that have not been implemented at
the present time. They will be
implemented by this fall and then we will have complied with all the 17 different
categories. I do not have my staff
person here at the present time who deals with the transportation. He will be here later and we can maybe deal
with that a little further. I will have
the details as to the two components that we have not implemented yet which are
in the process of being implemented and should be in by this fall.
Mr.
Reid: I have a question for the minister under the
Transport Compliance section. I have
several questions actually.
It has to do with the inspection of the
transport inspectors. It is my understanding
that there were some changes to the staffing levels of those inspectors over
the last year, year and a half, and of course it raises several questions in respect
to transport compliance and the inspections that would take place out of that.
Can the minister give me an indication‑‑and
I believe the designation for these employees in the department under the MV, MV1,
2, 3, maybe 4, and the minister can correct me on that part if there are others
or the designations have changed‑‑tell me how many inspectors there
were in the past year and how many inspectors there will continue to be this
year to do the Transport Compliance inspections?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, if I can just give the
member the information that I have here.
Security of vehicle loads element of the National Safety Code was
implemented October 1, 1991; self enforcement was in effect until January 1,
1992. Indications are that the industry is seemingly supportive of this initiative,
but is slow to comply. Accordingly, Transport
Compliance staff are exercising discretion.
Due to the innovative program delivery changes, for example, more
detailed inspections on a random basis and increased operational effectiveness,
6 SYs were eliminated without a reduction in the level of service.
* (1510)
At the present time, I want to indicate that
we also have 11 permanent weigh stations in operation. We have the ones at Headingley and West Hawk
operating 24 hours a day. Headingley operates
five days per week plus one weekend shift and West Hawk operates seven days per
week. Other weigh stations typically have
varying eight‑hour shifts Monday through Friday. At the present time, we are divided into 17
compliance territories where staff patrol a geographic area. I just want to indicate that current
compliance rate average is over 99 percent.
Mr.
Reid: The questions I had related to the technical
and the professional support people who perform these inspections. I will have further questions on the weigh
scales in a few moments. I had some
concerns there that I mentioned in my opening comments when Estimates started
for this department.
My concerns are presently for the members of
the minister's staff in his department who perform these transport inspections.
It is my understanding that there was some concern and there were some changes
where the status of these individuals was changed. They went from special
constables‑‑they were given a special constable status and that was
changed, and there was some change to the powers that they had. There is some question now whether or not
they are actually peace officers and they can actually enforce The Highway
Traffic Act. There are also some
questions on definitions of a peace officer as it applies to The Highway Traffic
Act versus the Criminal Code.
Can the minister make some comment on the
changes that applied to those individuals and their ability to perform their functions
and their duties?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that
the role of our compliance officers has not changed. There has been no change in that regard at
all. They have the right as compliance
officers to deal with certain irregularities, overloads, for example, and the
safety compliances. These are the things
that they normally deal with. I want to
indicate‑‑
An
Honourable Member: And they harass us‑‑
Mr.
Driedger: No, they do not. In fact, they use common sense in many of
these cases.
I want to indicate, just for the member's
edification, that the number of vehicles processed from April 1, 1991, to March
31, 1992, we had over 520,000 vehicles that were processed by our compliance
people. This has to deal with anything
from overweight, oversize, faulty equipment and safety, driver and vehicle
licensing, dangerous goods, hours of service, violation of oversize‑overweight
permits. These are all the things that they
cover. In terms of actual revenue
generated through the fine system, it works out to almost $800,000 for the last
year that our compliance people ticketed people, I guess. I would have to say to the member that
obviously to have this kind of activity, they obviously are very busy and are
doing a good job.
Mr.
Reid: I will try this from a different tack
then. Can the minister give me an
indication of the different levels of inspectors that are in this particular
portion of his department? I believe the
title designations for these staff people are under the designation of MV1,
MV2, and so on. Am I correct in my
assumption on that part?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not quite sure whether
that is the case. I think the
designation is motor vehicle inspectors.
Madam Chairperson, we have MV1s, MV2s, motor
vehicle inspectors one, two, and the various categories depending on their
seniority and their job responsibilities.
So it is based on that.
Basically, they all do the same job.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister tell me how many MV1s we
have, how many MV2s we have, and how many MV3s we have, and their functions,
duties and assignments? Where are they
assigned?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is pretty detailed information. I do not have that here. I have to give the member an undertaking that
I will get that information to him.
Mr.
Reid: I am sure that it has been brought to the
minister's attention already, but I will bring it to his attention again that
there is concern amongst his employees in the department that with the
reduction, the numbers of the inspectors who go out and do the actual
inspections, there is concern there because of the change in the status that
they had over the course of the last year and a half, and they are concerned
about their abilities to perform their jobs.
Their numbers have apparently been decreased
over the course of the last two years, it is my understanding. I find it difficult to understand how we can
enforce the National Safety Code and all of the increases it is going to mean
if we are going to have increased north‑south traffic in our transport
compliance as we try to meet the requirements of the National Safety Code if we
have a decreased number of inspectors.
Can the minister tell me‑‑I am sure his staff should be able
to provide this to him‑‑how many inspectors we had in 1988 before
deregulation came into effect, and how many we have today to ensure those
different sectors of the transport companies that are operating in and through
this province will meet the requirements of the National Safety Code? How many inspectors are there to make sure
that these requirements are met?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, as the National Safety
Code was implemented, it was staged over a number of years. We are in the final stages in terms of
meeting the compliances or requirements, and in this year's budget we have six
staff years that we will be bringing forward to take and implement the final
two stages. Then our component will be complete.
I do not know where the member gets his
information from, by indicating that we do not have enough staff and that we
are not doing the job, because I think that we are accomplishing what is required
in terms of the compliance area. Based
on the figures that we have here, I think it is doing an effective job. I am not quite sure what the member is
getting at in terms of his criticism as to the staff not doing their job or not
being happy or feeling that they have not got enough people there. Certainly figures and information I have are
supportive of their doing their job efficiently. I am not aware that there is a need for more
staffing.
Mr.
Reid: These are concerns that were brought to my
attention. I must admit it is a few months back that they were brought to my attention,
and I was waiting for my Estimates to come forward, thinking that they would
have come at an earlier time. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
Nevertheless, these employees in the minster's
department are quite concerned because they feel that the powers that they previously
had that would allow them to enforce the act were stripped away from them. They no longer feel that they have those
powers and the protection that it would provide for them. There was some
concern as well about the legal, medical and other expenses that they would
incur in the course of doing their job and their duties, and these individuals
had drawn this information to my attention.
I want to make the minister aware that there
are some serious concerns, and I would hope that his department would have
already been aware of that. If they are
not, then I am quite surprised that has not taken place.
* (1520)
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I would have to say that is
the first time that has been brought to my attention. I will certainly take it as notice and check
with my administrative staff to see whether there is any unhappiness out there,
whether there are concerns, because I would like to think that my departmental
people would feel, you know, comfortable that if they had some concerns they
would bring them forward, certainly through administrative staff and to me, if
nothing else. Certainly, if they are talking to the critic from Transcona and raising
it with him, I am surprised it has not reached my table, but I will have a look
at that.
Mr.
Reid: I thank the minister for that. I hope he undertakes that, because it is
important that these people are given the opportunity and the tools to do their
jobs properly, because it is a very important section, Transport Compliance,
because it is all of our safety, not only in this Chamber but any member of society
at large, as we travel on the roads throughout the province.
I had raised, in my opening comments on this
department, my concerns about the hours of operation for the weigh scale stations
in the province, and the minister referenced it a few moments ago, the hours of
operation. I had the opportunity, just a
short time ago, a few weeks back, of coming by the Headingley station on a
Sunday evening, I believe it was, coming back from a meeting in western
Can the minister give me an indication of the
hours of operation? If he does not have
it here today, he can provide it at some other opportunity. I am interested in the hours of operation for
the weigh scales in the province, because it is my understanding that the truck
traffic of the province prefers to move about the highways of the province in
the nonpeak hours, if at all possible.
If the truck traffic is moving on our highways in the province, they
should have to proceed through the weigh scale stations and comply with the
normal inspection requirements of that particular facility.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate and repeat, as I indicated before, we have 11 permanent weigh stations
currently in operation. Headingley and
West Hawk are the main ones that we have.
They operate 24 hours per day. Headingley operates five days per week
plus one weekend shift. However, the truckers never know when we are on or
off. If the member has been driving
along seeing exactly what happens‑‑when lights are flashing you
have to weigh. They never know when our compliance
people are around or when we do the checking.
We have random checking as well.
I will tell you something. Our compliance rate average is over 99
percent. So the truckers are very
shrewd. They stay within their requirements
in most cases. They never know when they
are going to be checked, either on the highway or at a weigh station. So it is foolhardy for them to say, well, we
can slip by somewhere along the line.
Invariably we get them.
Mr.
Reid: Can the minister tell me if it is the duties
and responsibilities of the weigh scale staff, at any point in our province,
whether they be the fixed weigh scales or the roving inspections, these
inspectors and staff who staff these facilities, is it one of their responsibilities
to ensure that the truck traffic that is going through these facilities are authorized
carriers?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes. It is my understanding that our staff check
whether they are authorized carriers.
Mr.
Reid: Okay, I will not belabour that point right
now. But I will draw to the minister's
attention that when we move under the section of Motor Transport Board, I will
be raising with him some concerns that have come to my attention and we have
been dealing with now for a number of months, relating to unauthorized carriers
operating in this province.
I know I asked the minister questions on this
in Question Period a few weeks back, and it seemed to have the desired effect in
bringing about some change to this. I
will make the minister's department aware that there are and were unauthorized carriers
going through those weigh scales and that these particular companies that are
doing this operation without authority were not detected at that time.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(e) Transport Compliance.
Mr.
Reid: I should finish that, Madam Chairperson, with
a question then. Will the minister take
that information back to his departmental people to make sure that part of
their function and duties are closely adhered to? I think it is important for the job
opportunities in this province that any unauthorized carriers are detected and
that the appropriate actions are taken.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I had that information
at the time when the member asked the question.
I got that information, and in that particular case, the issue that he
was alluding to, the Motor Transport Board was well aware of it. There were some irregularities they were
dealing with and actually there were hearings to further deal with some
complaints on that aspect. I will try
and get the details of what has happened since that time, but the issue that he
brought forward at that time was already under consideration by the Motor
Transport Board at the time when he raised it.
I will just have to get the details of what has happened since that
time.
Mr.
Reid: He mentioned a very high percentage of
compliance. Can the minister give me an indication on whether or not there were
any charges laid for the noncompliance sections in fractions that were detected
by his departmental staff? Can he give
me an indication of how many and what the process is involved here? Do these end up in court? Are these noncomplying individuals or companies
charged?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, as I indicated before that
580,000 vehicles have been processed in 1990‑91, and we had 520,897
vehicles that were processed in the last current year from April 1 to March 31,
and 945 of them dealt with overweight, 161 dealt with oversize, public service
vehicles it was 29, faulty equipment and safety was 1,030, driver vehicle and licensing
was 251, dangerous goods was 76, hours of service was 99 which was an increase
of 44 from last year to 99 now, violation of oversize, overweight permits, we
had 140 last year for a total of 2,731 violations where persecutions took
place. We have other areas that deal with single‑trip permits, designated
regulated commodity permits, motive fuel permits over 5,000 of those, transit
licences. So those are the areas, basically,
that they dealt with under the compliance aspect of it.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(e) Transport Compliance: (1) Salaries and Wages $1,620,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $410,800‑‑pass.
2.(f) District Offices: (a) Salaries and Wages $7,603,800.
Mr.
Gregory Dewar (Selkirk): I was just wondering, is this minister
considering moving the Highway department, District 1, Highways office from
Selkirk to Beausejour or any other rural community?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member has been raising
that issue quite regularly. I can
appreciate his concern, because the rumours and the media have speculated on
this for quite some time. I indicated to
the member, at the present time we have not made a decision to move the office,
but we are looking at changes all the time within my department in terms of being
more efficient and delivering the program better.
I want to indicate that the speculation is not
all idle speculation, that it is being looked at in terms of the fact that the
office is too small. Their space is too
small in Selkirk at the present time. We
have a building in Beausejour where we do have space. So this is one of the things that is under
review.
I want to indicate to the member that,
rightfully, he is raising it and certainly the mayor of Selkirk and other
people have raised the issue as well. I
appreciate his concern in that regard, but I want to indicate again that a
final decision has not been made in that regard.
Mr.
Dewar: Could you tell me how many employees would be
involved in such a move, if it ever happened?
* (1530)
Mr.
Driedger: I believe that we have approximately 45 people
that are working out of the district office in Selkirk. Some of those are not stationed there; they
operate out of the district office. Some
of them are out on the various beats, et cetera, but basically they are being‑‑I
suppose, I am trying to look for the word‑‑stationed there. That is where they operate from, they are not
necessarily on site.
I just want to indicate that we have 40
positions out of Selkirk, out of the district office there. We have 18 out of the Lac du Bonnet office.
Mr.
Dewar: I would like to thank the minister for that
answer. All 45 jobs, of course, would be a significant loss to the community. Who would make that final decision about such
a transfer?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the government of the day
would make that decision.
Mr.
Dewar: Well, has the Minister of Highways been
lobbied by any of his cabinet colleagues to move this office to another location?
Mr.
Driedger: If the member is making reference to some of
the media speculation that has been going on and my colleague, the member for
Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik)‑‑I have to indicate that the member for
Lac du Bonnet has not had any decision‑making role to play in this
decision, and it is not to that point.
When we finally get to the point where a decision is pending, the
members of government at that time will make that decision.
Mr.
Dewar: At the recent Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities
convention, the minister was asked, I think by two of the town councillors, if
the minister was considering moving. One councillor said he said no. The other said he said yes. Maybe he could
just clear this up now.
Mr.
Driedger: I just now want to indicate that they were
both right.
Mr.
Dewar: I hope it is the councillor who said no was
the answer to that question. That
concludes my questioning on that matter.
Thank you.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): Madam Chairperson, just a brief question. I have a series of questions on winter
roads. I just wanted to raise a concern
of the fact that there has been another derailment on the bayline apparently
outside of Pikwitonei. Yesterday there was a derailment affecting one car. It makes it the second derailment in just
over a week.
It affected one car this time, but the concern
in the communities is growing along the bayline. It is a concern we have expressed in this
House about the deteriorating condition of the bayline. One derailment followed by another in a
period of a week and a half cannot be dismissed as merely coincidence or beaver
dams or washouts, et cetera. There is a
real concern about the condition of the bayline that makes sense, given the fact
that CN has been cutting back on maintenance along that rail line consistently
for the last number of years.
To the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey), this government should be raising this issue on a daily basis. He ought not to suggest that we are trying to
blame them for the situation in terms of CN, we are not. We are trying to get some action. We are trying to make sure the province is
saying, it has gotten to the point where the bayline is getting to the point of
being unsafe through deliberate neglect by the federal government and by CN.
The bottom line is my question: Will the minister, and I know he has raised
this matter in the past, I am not trying to suggest he has not, but will he now
in light of that second derailment immediately contact the federal Minister of
Transport and say to the federal government directly that we need an upgrading
of the bayline?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate that the second derailment, which was only one car, apparently everything
is fixed and everything is rolling again, even in the one at Thicket Portage,
everything is on a go situation at the present time.
The first derailment was caused by a
washout. This is a thing that no matter
the amount of upgrading would necessarily avoid that, because what happens from
time to time, the member alluded to the fact that beaver dams get built all
over the place. It is a serious problem
within my department. We spend a lot of
time and a lot of money dealing with the problems created by beavers. What happens, they build their dams and when
they break, this created the kind of a washout that happened at the first
derailment.
The second one, I am just getting the report
on that. There was only one car that got
off the rail. I do not know what the details
of that are at the present time. I am
getting that report. I just want to
indicate to the member that in terms of the general upgrading of the line,
which, by and large, CN I think has a figure of over $100 million that it is
going to cost. The
I just want to indicate that after having had
the junior Minister of Transport, Shirley Martin, out last year to Churchill,
she has indicated that she, as well as the federal Minister of Transport, Mr.
Corbeil, are gathering information and figures, and that later on this year I
expect that we will be getting together with them to discuss by and large the
future of Churchill, I suppose, and also the cost implications of upgrading the
line. So there will be some decisions
made, because there is no way that we can continually keep on operating the way
we do on a year‑to‑year basis, not knowing how much grain is going
to be moved and whether there is going to be a line, period. So these are some of the serious decisions
that will have to be dealt with, in my view, within the next six months.
Mr.
Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I would point out to the
minister that previously, in 1984, as part of the federal‑provincial agreement,
transportation subagreement, there was upgrading.
I think that the minister has to accept the
kind of comments that were put forward by our Transportation critic and the
Hudson Bay Route Association, the bottom line being that we have to get in
there if we are going to save the bayline and save the
This leads me into my next area of
questioning, and I do not want to say "I told you so" too many times
in this Legislature, but it is about winter roads. I want to say to the minister, I told him
so. You may recall in terms of winter
roads that the government cut the winter roads into Thicket Portage, Pikwitonei
and Ilford, all three of which are served by the bayline. They cut it because residents of the
community were told they had their own form of transportation.
It was reinstated into the Department of
Northern Affairs where it should have been in the first place. I know residents were very pleased with that,
and I was very disappointed at the time that Highways did not see the same
priority for winter roads.
I think what has happened this last week and a
half shows how tenuous the bayline is as a connection for people in those communities
relying on it for medical appointments, relying on it for groceries, relying on
it for their connection to the outside world, because none of those communities
has scheduled air service. The bottom
line is, the bayline is their lifeline to the outside world.
In the case of Thicket Portage, the minister
says it is back in operation, but it was close to a week before it was back in operation,
close to a week. In terms of the
derailment at Thicket Portage, there were six cars that derailed. Fortunately the passenger car did not. If the passenger car had derailed, we could
have been dealing with a very serious situation, and I really get worried about
potential for accidents in that area because of the fact it is isolated. If somebody were to be injured, it would be
very difficult to get people out in a hurry to deal with that kind of
situation.
* (1540)
But I do have some further questions on winter
roads, and I know that the communities in that area have been reinstated, but it
is the continuing concern about the status of winter roads in this
province. It is a concern that has been
particularly expressed by members of First Nations, the southeast side of
One of the major concerns they have is the
continuing anomaly in
I would like to ask the Minister of Highways
and Transportation (Mr. Driedger), on behalf of the communities affected, is
the minister reviewing the current funding formula and funding policies in
place, in the case of this particular road network, that would not see First
Nations have to use their own capital budgets to support the winter road
system, which by the way supports not just reserves but also a number of communities
which are basically Northern Affairs communities that are under provincial
jurisdiction, that are not treaty communities?
Will the minister indicate whether he is reviewing this particular
concern that is being expressed by those reserves I listed earlier?
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(f) District Offices: (1) Salaries and Wages.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the issue of the winter
roads was raised by the critic the other day, and I explained to him how the
funding aspect of it has changed to some degree, because the member is correct,
it is part of the capital allocation.
At one time it was basically‑‑we
collect our money directly from the federal government, the department of
Indian and native affairs, that is who we basically deal with on a cost‑share
basis to provide this service. Now,
under the new system or the system that is changing in terms of the capital‑cost
allocations, the bands are supposed to allocate their money out of that portion
of their capital program, which is given consideration when they get their
capital allocation.
That is because of the funding that is being
changed in terms of how they fund that to the communities. They are coming up and saying that we should
be paying for the winter roads totally by ourselves. Well, I am not prepared to accept that. The federal government has the
responsibility, and I am not going to let them get off the hook.
Mr.
Ashton: Madam Chairperson, the concern of the
communities is that they are being assessed the cost out of their capital allocations,
and it is coming out of the communities.
I would like to ask a further question on the assessment, last year they
were assessed $2 million. I would like
to ask, given the fact it cost $1,670,000, what is happening in terms of the
difference of the balance in the assessment between what they were assessed and
what it actually cost to construct?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I indicated earlier, last
time when we were in the Estimates that 100 percent provincial, we have
budgeted $245,000. This is strictly
provincial. Shareable with
Mr.
Ashton: Madam Chairperson, I am asking specifically
for the difference between the assessment to the communities and the actual
cost of constructing the road in that area?
What has been happening with that difference?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not aware that there
is really any problem, but I have had requests from the people from the
communities that they are to meet to discuss this aspect of it, and I am
prepared to do that. We will be trying
to arrange a meeting very shortly. I
have always felt that we had a very good working relationship, because when
they came forward last year and asked us for advance money we worked that out
with the federal government to make sure that they got start‑up advance money
which was different. In previous years
they only got paid after the work was done and until we finally got the money
from the feds. We have made some very
positive changes with them, and I have always indicated we meet once a
year. The Minister of Northern and
Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) and myself meet with the groups and discuss, you
know, how we can probably make things a little easier for them.
This aspect of funding that has come forward
where they say that we should be taking over the total road system, I have to indicate
to the member I am not prepared to look at that at this stage of the game. The funding allocation that they get under the
capital is taken into consideration for winter roads. Now they want to take that portion of it away
and say, well, it is our responsibility provincially, and I will not let the
feds get off the hook.
Mr.
Ashton: Madam Chairperson, the concern of the First
Nations is not a question of letting the federal government off the hook but
them having the money taken from their capital allocations. The minister might
perhaps wish to meet with his appropriate counterparts on the federal side,
perhaps Public Works, perhaps his counterpart in terms of Minister of Highways
federally, because that is the concern of the First Nations that while theoretically
it is the federal government that is paying, the money is coming from their
budget.
I also want to indicate another concern, and
that is in regards to the administrative fee that is being paid for to the province,
the fact that the First Nations communities feel that in fact makes the federal
contribution directly or indirectly, however it is calculated, higher and
question the fairness to the communities.
Once again a funding system that takes not only the 50‑50 but the
administrative costs out of funds that should be available to them as
communities. I would ask the minister to
sit down and meet with the representatives, and I would include the Minister of
Native Affairs (Mr. Downey). I am
surprised the Minister of Native Affairs has not raised this matter with the Minister
of Highways. [interjection! The minister says, how do I know he has not. Because we met with the representatives of
the communities I listed.
I met with them last week as did many members
of our caucus, and they made it very clear that they are frustrated in dealing with
this provincial government and they would like a review of the system. They have asked, Madam Chairperson, that this
government listen. [interjection! If the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr.
Downey) does not know the chiefs in those communities that shows how
incompetent he is as Minister of Northern Affairs, and he ought not to try and
disrupt the hearings of this committee because of his own ignorance.
So I will ask the minister once again, and he
has indicated on the record he will meet with the communities, will he review the
overall question and will he also look at the administrative fee and also the
question, as I mentioned earlier in terms of the appropriateness of instead of
taking it from the First Nations communities, of approaching the federal
government directly rather than asking First Nations communities to be picking
up the cost out of their capital budgets for winter roads?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, yes, I am prepared to do
that. I am going to gather the information from the federal government, and I
have also indicated that I am prepared to meet with them as I do every
year. We will meet again with them and
discuss the pros and cons of it, but if the member is indicating here that they
are frustrated and that they are not happy with the way we have been operating
with them, I beg to differ on that, because we have had a good working
relationship with them. I will question
them when we get together with them, because we will be setting up that meeting
and if that is the feeling that they are going to be unhappy, you know‑‑because
that has not been the context in terms of our conversations and meetings that
we have had. It has been very amiable
and we have been complying and making things better for them all the way along,
and we will continue to do that.
Mr.
Ashton: I hope the government will listen directly to
the concerns, and I appreciate the undertaking of the minister to do so. I have one final question, and it is dealing
with the question of northern roads.
I did not have the opportunity to raise this
matter before, Madam Chairperson, and I may not have the opportunity to raise
it later in terms of when we discuss the minister's salary, but I want to
indicate that the concern I have expressed in the House in regards to the
condition of Highway 391 which services a number of northern communities,
particularly Nelson House, Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake, is an ongoing concern.
I was in Nelson House this past weekend to
attend a graduation at the high school, and every person I spoke to raised their
concern about the condition of the highway.
* (1550)
In addition, I would point out that I was in
error in the House a couple of weeks ago, and I would like to correct the record
when I said that two cars had overturned on the highway. There were in fact
three cars that had overturned on the highway that weekend. Three others ended up in the ditch.
I know there has been some construction on
that road in past years, but I can indicate, having driven the road as recently
as this Saturday, it is in very poor shape.
Many of the accidents have taken place in specific locations. I believe all six cars which either ended up
in the ditch or ended up turning over were all on the same stretch of
highway. Indeed, I have asked‑‑as
I spoke to one of the individuals involved in an accident on that stretch of
the highway just a week and a half ago‑‑I have asked them and they
will be following up in terms of a letter to the minister outlining the
concern.
The bottom line is, people are very concerned
about the condition of the highway. When
it comes to the priorities of the government we can debate whether the government
should be spending money on Highway 75, the double‑laning, when we have public
safety at risk in terms of Highway 391 at the current point in time. There needs to be some serious upgrading of
the road, and I can provide details on specific stretches. Anyone in Nelson House, Leaf Rapids,
So I would like to ask the minister, since I
was unable to ask him directly in the House‑‑I asked the Minister
of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) and really got no response‑‑whether
the Minister of Highways (Mr. Driedger) will respond favourably to the pleas of
the residents, particularly of Nelson House, Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake and also
those in Thompson who use Highway 391, for something to be done about the
problem with the highway.
It is unsafe.
It is not just a question here of comfort. It is not just a question of damage to
vehicles, although those problems are in existence. There are real concerns about the safety of
that highway. Will the minister
undertake to review the condition of the highway and review capital allocations
to ensure that those safety problems are dealt with?
Mr.
Driedger: The member raises not a new issue. I can recall the first time when I first had
the position of being Minister of Highways and Transportation that I drove the
road all the way from
That is a fair amount of money. So, if the member wants to compare some of
the roads based on the traffic, et cetera, we have put a fair share of money
into that 391 every year. I want to
indicate I realize the safety aspect of it.
We apply calcium, and we have passing lanes every 12 miles so that
people can pass where we apply the double calcium, so that people can pass
safely.
Madam Chairperson, I realize, it is not the
best highway. There are concerns out there, but we have ongoing programs that we
are doing in terms of reconstructing. I
think there is basically two sets of construction left, two 14‑mile
stretches that basically have to be upgraded yet, which is, I think, the portion
that there are the most concerns about.
Mr. Ashton:
Madam Chairperson, just to conclude, I would like to invite the minister
to come with me on a new fact‑finding tour of that area. In fact, I would like to invite him whenever
is convenient to come to travel along 391, come along to the access road at
Nelson House.
I say that having known that in other areas‑‑and
I just want to put on the record some of the concerns I raised on behalf of the
community of
But I do want to say that I know he has had a
fair and open mind in terms of other matters, and I would appreciate it if he could
come into the community. Believe you me,
this is a northern community‑‑in the case of Nelson House and Leaf
Rapids, people know what it is like to have rough roads, but it has gone beyond
that.
People are very concerned about the safety,
and I really think that if the minister was to travel with us‑‑and
I am sure the Liberal critic would, I am sure, be interested in coming up and
seeing the condition of the road. I
think he would agree with the communities that something has to be done before
someone gets hurt.
I will say that, Madam Chairperson, I do not
use that kind of language very often:
Someone is going to get hurt on a couple of the stretches of the
highway. I am prepared to provide
complete details. In fact, I have a
series of letters from residents of Nelson House which I can provide to the
minister. I will be receiving those
within the next two days, about specific problems and incidents on that
highway. So I appreciate anything the minister
could do, anything that this government can do in terms of dealing with the
unsafe conditions.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I think first I will
indicate to the member that if and when we ever get out of this session that I
am prepared to do extensive travelling in the North this summer, just to get
acquainted with it. Also, I want to
indicate that we have been spending a fair amount of money up there in the North. For example, on 373 we put a new bridge in to
Norway House. We have also done that
stretch of road within the community where between the Minister of Northern and
Native Affairs (Mr. Downey) and myself, we came to an arrangement: which was
going to be my responsibility, which was his. We have operated that road up to the
airport. We have ongoing work on 373 as
well as 391 and that will continue.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 2.(f) District Offices: (1) Salaries and Wages $7,603,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,260,000‑‑pass.
2.(g) Other Jurisdictions: (1) Gross Expenditures $3,030,000‑‑pass;
(2) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$1,000,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 76:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$75,403,400 for Highways and Transportation, Operations and Maintenance, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 3. Planning and Design and Land Surveys
(a) Planning and Design: (1) Salaries‑‑
Mr.
Reid: Just one quick question for the
minister: I know the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) would like to dispense with any discussions on
this, but this is a concern that was raised by a constituent in the Interlake
area, and I know he does not like to hear from the public in Manitoba about
their serious concerns, but I will advise him right now that I am going to raise
this matter right now with the Minister of Highways, contrary to the Minister
of Northern Affairs' wishes.
We have received a letter from an
individual. I believe it comes under
Planning and Design, and this was a piece of land that was expropriated by the‑‑[interjection!
Are you finished?
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr.
Reid: Whenever the Minister of Northern Affairs is
finished, Madam Chairperson, I would be pleased to place my question.
The individual was concerned because a
particular piece of property was expropriated by the railway quite a number of
years ago from his family, and, of course, that railway has abandoned that
line. I am talking about along Highway
222, from
If I were to forward this concern, which I
think has already been drawn to the minister's department's attention, would
the minister's department be willing to look at allowing this individual to
gain back that extra 50 feet that he can use for his operations?
* (1600)
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I do not know if this had crossed
my desk already or not. Certainly, we would
be prepared to give that consideration.
I just want to indicate the normal process when the rail line is
abandoned, the process of turning the property back. Ultimately, I think, the federal government turns
it over to the province, and the province then goes through a process of
letting each department know to see whether they have any interest in this
property. Failing that, then the next step
is that the municipalities get first crack at it, and if nobody has expressed
any interest in this property, then ultimately we turn it back to the people
who, by and large, owned the land at one time.
In this particular case, I will see what the requirements are from my
department and cultural departments, and if there is no problem, prepare to
allow the individual to see whether we can turn that back. Without having the details of it and knowing
what our plans are, I cannot really given a definitive answer at this stage of
the game. If the member wants to send it
forward, I will have staff look at that.
Mr.
Reid: I had asked the minister once before, and I
guess I should clarify. I know he, each
year, issues an annual construction program list, but it was my understanding
that last year, too, he also had a list of projects that had already been tendered
and tenders that had been accepted and let.
Can the minister advise us whether or not he
has a similar list for this year's projects?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member had raised this
with me earlier, and staff is compiling that information. I should have it shortly. I will make it available to both critics similar
to the way we did it in previous years.
He had raised it with me. I made
staff aware of it, and I am waiting for the response to come back.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 3.(a) Planning and Design: (1) Salaries and Wages $1,986,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $448,500‑‑pass.
3.(b) Land Surveys: (1) Salaries and Wages.
Mr.
Reid: The minister's department undertook to close
some 2,000 kilometres of provincial roads in the last year. Under this section, of course, it talks about
preparation and processing of closing orders and declaration and abandonment
for PTHs and PRs.
Can the minister give an indication whether or
not there is any further consideration of his department to any further abandonment
or closing or transfers of any of the PRs, PTHs in the province to the
municipalities or otherwise?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I certainly hope not,
because it has been a very difficult process.
I want to indicate that in fact we still have the odd meeting with some
of the municipalities, in terms of trying to see whether we can make some
adjustments that are more compatible to them, but no, there is certainly
nothing further that I am aware of about turning back any further roads.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 3.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $314,500‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations $1,534,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 77:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,434,600
for Highways and Transportation, Planning and Design and Land Surveys, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
Item 4. Engineering and Technical Services (a)
Management Services: (1) Salaries
$142,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $22,200‑‑pass.
4.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services: (1) Salaries and Wages.
Mr.
Reid: Maybe the minister could give me an
indication‑‑and he can advise if it is more appropriate for me to
ask the questions relating to ferry service under the Marine Services section. Would
it make a difference to his staff who are available?
Mr.
Driedger: Go for it now, Madam Chairperson.
Mr.
Reid: The minister has, in past Estimates, provided
us with information relating to the different airports and ferry services in
the province, and we appreciate the information that he has provided.
Are any changes being planned to the ferry
services that are in operation in the province by way of decreased hours or increased
hours, to any of the operations or any of the facilities currently out of
service operation?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to the member
that there are no changes from other years.
We have requests from time to time from communities where they want extended
hours. The Bloodvein community asked
whether they could have‑‑we operate there five days a week, and
because I think they are putting in sewer and water in their community, they
wanted to know whether they could have longer hours or more days. We reviewed it. Staff has been out talking with them as well
as the contractors, and provisions are being made that if the contractor needs
to bring in additional supplies that he will take‑‑the contractor
will pay, but the staff is prepared to work the extra hours to take and move
equipment and materials and supplies as required.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Chairperson, can the minister give me
an indication: Are all of the ferries on
more than one round trip per day or are there some ferries that are only
providing service on one round trip per day?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, each ferry has its own schedule. Some are daily schedules; some are on a
weekly basis. I can indicate to the member that I will get him details as to the
operations of each of the ferries so that he knows exactly which ones are
operating at what times‑‑for both critics.
Mr.
Reid: Thank you.
I appreciate that information that the minister will provide. I raised the question because I have been contacted
by individuals who were concerned that their ferry services were only operating
on a once‑a‑day schedule.
They had advised that they thought it would provide better access to the
community and out of the community if that operation was to move to a twice‑a‑day
schedule. Once the minister provides me
with the list, I will raise with him the other concerns that the resident had
about that ferry service, and maybe the minister can give me an indication on
whether his department can have that service operated on a twice‑daily
round‑trip schedule.
Mr.
Driedger: I am sure that in almost every case the people
would probably like to have an improved and extended service. We keep reviewing this, but I have my
financial budgetary figures that I have to work with, and within reason we try
to comply with whatever requests that come, within reason based on the finances
that I have. That is why I raise the
issue of Bloodvein because they had a special request and we have tried to deal
with that, and I think the community is happy with the arrangement we have. Once
the member gets a copy of all the ferries and hours, I am prepared to sit down
and discuss it further with him.
Mr.
Reid: I thank the minister for that.
I know last year when we were discussing his
budget during debate on the Estimates, the minister thought that there was going
to be a great financial saving for his department. It is our understanding that there was not
that great saving that was there. The
minister, after consulting with his departmental staff, saw fit to reinstate
some of the service there because there was not that great saving as had been
anticipated. That is another reason why
I raise it. It is my understanding that
there is not a great cost to provide that twice‑a‑day round‑trip
service for these people because that ferry is in service, the staff are there
already, and it is only the minimal fuel requirements that would be required
for that round‑trip basis.
Mr.
Driedger: As I indicated, Madam Chairperson, I will
provide the lists and the hours and the schedules that are being run, and if
the member feels that there should be different consideration given, I will
review it with him at that time.
* (1610)
Madam
Chairperson: Item 4.(b) Mechanical Equipment Services: (1)
Salaries and Wages $7,750,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures, $11,230,000‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations,
$21,771,000‑‑pass.
4.(c) Warehouse Stores: (1) Salaries and Wages, $464,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $138,900‑‑pass; (3) Purchases $6,400,000‑‑pass;
(4) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$6,400,000‑‑pass.
4.(d) Northern Airports: (a) Salaries and Wages.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, just one question on this
to the minister: I note the amount
recoverable from Canada here is $407,000 out of a budget in excess of $5
million; is that the extent of the federal contribution? If so, that seems awfully small to me, given
their responsibility not just for aboriginals and the requisite transportation
services for them, but also the federal jurisdiction over airports
generally. Is that the extent of the
federal contribution, and if so, is the minister actively pursuing a higher
level of assistance in financing these northern airports?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that $470,000 basically is,
we share responsibilities at Norway House.
The balance of it is for weather reporting which we recover from the
federal government. Other than that, it is the provincial responsibility in
terms of looking after the northern airports, and I have to indicate that I
think we have done a pretty good job in terms of the maintenance there. At least, meeting with Perimeter Air and some
of those people, they feel that we are doing a pretty good job.
Incidentally, I might indicate that it is
mostly native people whom we basically employ in these communities there, and we
are very happy with the work that is being done.
Mr.
Edwards: Can the minister give an indication if there
are any upgrading programs planned for any of the northern airports for the
coming year?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we look at continuous upgrading. Of a major nature, we are looking at doing
some work at the
I would like to actually see many of our
runways‑‑actually pave them and have good runways out there, but I
do not have the finances available to me in my department. If we could make some arrangement with the
feds, it would make it a lot easier.
Other than that, we are working with the federal government in terms of the
Wasagamack airport. We also have other
requests, other communities, that want either their runways extended or new
ones built. It is an ongoing
process. Certainly, I think we have made
a commitment from our government together with my colleague the Minister of
Native and Northern Affairs to try and see whether we can prioritize Wasagamack
in terms of getting them an airport. But
we still have not got the go‑ahead with the feds in terms of the cost‑sharing
arrangements.
Mr.
Edwards: Does the minister mean for Wasagamack, is that
in addition to the Garden Hill airport terminal facility that is there already
and the runways?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that would be a new strip
for Wasagamack. We have two strips out
there right now. We have one at St.
Theresa and Garden Hill. Incidentally,
they are very busy airports out there, as well.
We are looking at the one at Wasagamack as a single entity. It would be just to serve the community of
Wasagamack.
Mr.
Reid: I have had the opportunity over the course of
the last two years to utilize these different airports in the northern part of
the province. It has been my experience,
from my limited knowledge of it at least, that they appear to be in very good shape.
There is some concern about the lengths of
some of them, of course, and they are only able to service certain types of aircrafts
which puts some limits on the ability of the communities to move passengers and
freight in and out of their communities because of the limitations on the size
of the aircraft that can service them. I
think that was drawn into pretty clear understanding by the rail derailment
that was in Thicket Portage and the fact that they did not have any opportunities
to move their product in and out of their community and that they were limited
by aircraft size because of their airport facilities.
There was also some concerns that were raised
with us when we were on a recent swing up north about the cost of shipping freight
traffic in and out of these northern communities, because these communities are
locked in and they do not have access to other modes of transportation to any
degree, the concern by what some might consider to be price fixing in some of
these cases. I use that term guardedly,
because I have no way of confirming one way or the other whether that is taking
place. The concern there is that their
product can only be taken out of their communities by air and that they have no
control over the air fares that are charged to them. Now it may be that these air fares are legitimate
cost recovery and to provide for a margin of profit, but the concern is that
there is no regulatory program or policy that is in effect that would cause
these particular airlines that are servicing these communities to be answerable
to anyone.
Can the minister provide any information or
any clarification on those concerns?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, if there is concern about
the rates that are being set, the individuals supplying the service are the
ones who can set their rates. However,
if the people are unhappy, they can make application to the National
Transportation Agency to have the rates reviewed. That is sort of the safeguard that is out
there. They have that option. If they feel their rates are too high, then
they can take an appeal to the National Transportation Agency to have it
reviewed.
Mr.
Reid: I thank the minister for that. I will pass along that information that the
minister has provided to give those communities the opportunity to have their
concerns addressed through the NTA.
We had some concern in past months about the
federal government's appearance to renege on the hanger facilities for Churchill. Has any progress been made on that? Is that stalemated or has the federal
government totally abandoned their plans for Churchill's airport facilities?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me indicate that we
are not making much progress with that one, but that was a commitment that was
still out there. They still say it is a
priority. On the list of the priorities,
I do not know where it is, but I can indicate to the member that I intend to
bring that forward very strongly when we meet with the two ministers, Shirley
Martin as well as Corbeil, this fall when we review many things. This is certainly going to be one of the
things that we will be using as a negotiating point with them.
* (1620)
Mr.
Reid: I hope the minister will raise many other
issues, as I am sure he will, about Churchill, because I think it is important to
the community that if we continue to ship grain products through the port and
we want to have that community continue to play a role in northern Manitoba
into the future, the airport is obviously going to be very important, as will
the rail line to that particular community.
I think that if there is going to be any kind of provincial government
hopes or aspirations to get that rocket range reactivated and the program off
the ground, the airport is obviously going to be instrumental in ferrying in staff
and any equipment as well as the railway operations themselves. So that is one of the reasons why I raised
the hangar facilities and the role that it can play in the future for Churchill.
I have no other questions on that particular
section for now.
Madam
Chairperson: Item 4.(d) Northern Airports: (1) Salaries and Wages $3,146,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,858,100‑‑pass.
4.(e) Marine Services: (1) Salaries and Wages $610,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $445,000‑‑pass.
4.(f) Materials and Research: (1) Salaries and Wages $1,423,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $254,000‑‑pass.
4.(g) Traffic Engineering.
Mr.
Reid: I will be very brief here, Madam
Chairperson. I received some
correspondence from an individual who made me aware of a situation that I had
not previously been aware of, and that was dealing with the traffic control
devices, the lights. There appears to be
a difference in policy between the provincial highway programs that have
traffic control devices, the traffic lights, versus the City of
The minister can correct me if I am
wrong. In the city of
Can the minister give me an indication on
discrepancies between the City of
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, we follow the manual of
traffic administration of uniform traffic control devices. The city is the traffic authority. They are the traffic authority in
When the member makes reference to arrows
showing, for example, we do have some of those in the rural areas as well, where
we feel it is warranted to do that; but they have their authority and we have
ours. We follow the manual of uniform traffic
control devices as set out which is national.
It is a national standard.
Mr.
Reid: So if I understand the minister correctly,
while his department may adhere to and put into practice a uniform program that
is across the country, that there is no policy or no working together of the
City of Winnipeg with the minister's department to have some kind of uniform
policy or program in this area.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to the member
that we have no authority over the city in terms of that. They have their own
traffic authority, and I do not think there is that much variance in
there. But we do not have a say as to how
they should do that.
Mr.
Edwards: Two questions. I received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Unruh
back on April 4, 1992, with respect to a traffic flashing light at the
intersection of Highway 1 west and Highway 26.
It recounted a conversation with a Mr. Ross Adamson and went through
some of the reasons he gave for the removal of that red light. Can the minister indicate what his response
was to Mr. and Mrs. Unruh and whether or not the red light has been restored at
that intersection?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I can recall the
correspondence that came forward that was raised about the flashing lights. We have certain warrants or standards which
we use to apply as to whether we have flashing lights or not. In this particular case, the warrant was not
required anymore. I can probably get a
copy of the letter that was replied to the Unruhs if the member wants. It was just recently that I sent it, and I
can get him a copy of the letter explaining why we took the action we did.
Mr.
Edwards: I would appreciate receiving a copy of that in
particular, because it appears that the reasons given by the department are
taken issue with point by point with the Unruhs, and they conclude, of course,
that the flashing light was a safety factor which they relied upon. So I would appreciate seeing the minister's
response, in particular, on the issue of safety.
I realize that the department may feel that it
is superfluous to the needs of the area, but having residents in the area speak
out like is, those who know the road saying it is a safety factor should weigh
heavily, I would think, in terms of determining whether or not it should be
left in place. If there is an error to
be made, it should be on the side of caution, I would think. Unless this poses
a safety risk and can be proven so, I would assume the minister would want to
keep it in place, given that the local residents see it as a safety enhancement
feature.
My second question to the minister is on the
issue of pedestrian corridors. It is
simply whether or not the pedestrian corridors the provincial department uses
flash red or yellow. I note that the
ones in the city flash yellow. I also
note that they tend to be the scene of many, many injurious accidents to pedestrians
in the city of
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first indicate to
the member on his earlier comments that safety is one of the biggest concerns
within my department. Everything we do,
basically, we gear towards safety within reason. We have certain warrants that we use, for
example, setting up lights, crosswalks, et cetera. I am going to get a copy of my letter to the
members so that we can have further discussion on whatever we want.
He makes reference to the fact that we should
have red lights flashing at the crosswalks and staff informs me that the yellow
flashing lights are the national standard across the country and the yellow
flashing light is supposed to be a caution light. That is why we use the
yellow. I do not know whether the discussion
has come up in a broader basis in terms of the red or not, but I will keep that
in mind.
Mr.
Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I am aware of the national
standard and the discrepancy is this.
The yellow lights are there to highlight an area, a crossing that might
be used by pedestrians, and they are there to warn motorists at any given time
that someone might be crossing that crosswalk.
That is fundamentally different than a pedestrian corridor where to activate
going across the street someone pushes a button, that is, by pushing the button
you signal that someone is going to cross.
I do not know if, provincially, we have that
type where you push a button. I do know
that we have them in the city. I know that
if you read the driver's manual and if you read The Highway Traffic Act, you
will see that when the light is flashing signalling someone wants to cross, you
have to stop. Therefore, the yellow
national standard should not apply in that circumstance. It should be red, because it is not just a cautionary
signal. It is a stop signal under The
Highway Traffic Act and under the driver manual. So it goes beyond the cautionary signal of
the national code.
I do not know, as I say, if we have any
provincial corridors that are activated by pedestrians as we do in the city of
* (1630)
I guess I would like to leave this point
asking the minister to take that point up and look at it with a view, perhaps,
to representing that issue to the City of
Mr.
Driedger: I have taken note of the member's comments.
Madam Chairperson: Item 4.(g) Traffic Engineering: (1) Salaries and Wages $813,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $5,502,000‑‑pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations $1,000,000‑‑pass.
4.(h) Government Air and Radio Services.
Mr.
Reid: The minister has provided, in the past, some information
on the air transportation, the two Citation aircraft that the province owns and
maintains, one operated, I believe, for the air ambulance and the other one for
other and various uses, including backup air ambulance. The minister was kind enough, last Estimates,
to provide the total hours that were flown, the patient transfers and medical
emergencies by hours and a breakdown of government business as well.
Will the minister provide the same information
for last year, please?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate to the member,
I am prepared to bring that information forward. I do not have it here now, but I will get it
for you.
Mr.
Reid: I appreciate that. I understand the way the minister handled it
the last time, and I have no difficulties with it at this time.
There were some concerns the minister had
raised in a ministerial statement earlier this session concerning the air ambulance. Can the minister provide us with any further information
on any progress in the discussions that are taking place between the federal
government and his department relating to the air ambulance service?
Mr. Driedger: At
one stage of the game we were considering taking the matter to court, but we
have been trying to negotiate with the Transportation department, federally,
and I think we are making progress. I am
hoping that we probably will resolve it without having the issue go to
court. We still have that option of
going to court, if all else fails, but we think we are making progress, and
hopefully I can have a positive announcement within maybe a couple of months.
Mr.
Reid: Because the province has obviously the
equipment and the trained staff for that type of service, is the minister's department
still going to keep the air ambulance under the auspices of his
department? Is that going to remain a
function of his department, or are there some considerations underway or ongoing
to looking at privatizing this particular service?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, at the present time there
is no consideration to having any changes made.
I want to, once again, put on the record the quality of our staff in
terms of providing the kind of service that they do. I think it is exemplary, and I am very
pleased with the way we are operating.
No, we are not looking at any changes, just hoping to get the issue
resolved with the federal government and then we should be in good shape.
Mr.
Reid: I and my colleagues, as well as, I am sure,
all members of northern
The province also has water bombers that we
use for forest fire suppression in the province. I take it with the start of the forest fire
season‑‑and we heard through the media just this weekend some of
the equipment has been pressed into service‑‑can the minister give
any indication if there are any changes planned for the operations, as he had
indicated in the last Estimates, for the way we utilize and provide that type
of water‑bomber equipment service to other jurisdictions?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate that
there has been no change in terms of how we operate. We have reciprocal agreements with other
provinces where, if we need some of their units, they provide them and we do
likewise. Incidentally, units are often operating, as they are up North right
now. There are no changes in the method
of how we operate.
Mr.
Reid: To zero in more closely on the staffing, it
shows that there is a decrease in the staff for this portion of the department,
decreases as a result of efficiencies gained due to consolidation of
activities. Can the minister give me an indication
as to what activities were consolidated and where these people were employed,
what part of the province?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the positions, the four positions
that the member is alluding to, three were pilots and one was a mechanic. The mechanic's position was vacant, and we felt
we did not have to replace that one and gave that position up. The others were three pilot positions.
Mr.
Reid: So we lost three pilots' positions and one
mechanic. The mechanic does the repair on the aircraft and the pilots do, obviously,
the flying through various hours of the day.
We had a decrease in the service requirements for the aircraft?
Mr.
Driedger: We changed our ways of operating. Where we provided 24‑hour‑a‑day
service, we felt it was not necessary, so we made some revisions in that
respect, and that is why the changes in staffing.
Mr.
Reid: I had the opportunity recently to talk to an individual
who used to fly government service, the aircraft for the government, not
necessarily just in this jurisdiction.
The individual, by my limited experience again, seemed to have a broad‑based
knowledge of requirements. When I
started thinking back on some of the recommendations that he has made and indicated
for the safe transportation of anyone utilizing this particular equipment or
operating this equipment, whether it be the patients of the air ambulance,
government personnel or others travelling on government aircraft, the
individual made several recommendations that could be put into practice. I will provide that for the minister at
another opportunity. I have to talk to him. I think some of the recommendations were very
valid, and I provide that for him for his department to take under consideration
with possible implementation, and I will provide it when the Estimates are
complete.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I have no problem with the member
forwarding that information, though I want to indicate that we feel very
sensitive and proud of the fact that we are operating within the requirements
addressing the safety aspect of it.
Certainly, I am not adverse to looking at further suggestions. We will take them under consideration when he
forwards that information.
* (1640)
Madam
Chairperson: Item 4.(h) Government Air and Radio Services: (1) Salaries $3,831,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $5,815,300‑‑pass.
(3) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriations $8,651,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 78:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$12,025,100 for Highways and Transportation, Engineering and Technical
Services, $12,025,100 for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1993‑‑pass.
5. Transportation Policy and Research (a)
Salaries.
Mr.
Reid: Madam Chairperson, I have several questions
under this section, because this is obviously very important to many people in
the
In my own community that I represent, have the
honour of representing, there have been many layoffs in the transportation sector,
and we are going to see some further layoffs this summer in large numbers. Although the majority of these are only for a
short time, an extension of two months, it is obviously very difficult for the
families that have to endure these layoffs. There is also the fact that there
are going to be quite a number of employees in the CN Transcona plant who are
going to be on permanent layoff. There
are many, many rumours that are still swirling about the community about
further layoffs that are going to come about in the very near future, and I am
talking about after the summer, after the employees are supposed to be called back
to work.
Has the minister or the government, through
other departments, or the Premier (Mr. Filmon), had any discussions with
officials of CN? I know they have a long‑term
plan and a short‑term plan that they bring forward and are supposed to discuss
from time to time with the government.
Can the minister give me any indication of
CN's plans for their employment in the community of Transcona and other sites that
CN has a staff employed throughout the province?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let first of all indicate
that I meet with representatives from CN from time to time and, invariably, the
aspect of layoffs and job opportunities is one of the things we always
discuss. I want to indicate to the
member, as well, that actually the percentage of employment that we have in
In our discussions with CN, we keep pushing
the aspect of it, expressing our concern about layoffs, and invariably they
have indicated that they are trying to operate more efficiently and that they
can retain employment. They have to be
competitive as well. They have to be
responsible, so we have many discussions about it.
They have to make decisions and announcements,
I believe, six months prior to any implementation that they take on, and
usually they discuss this with the unions first before anything happens. The
unions are usually apprised of it virtually as soon, or sooner than I am, in
many cases. Invariably, the record of
their negotiations when they do have their layoffs, they have a good separation
package, the union is usually the one which ultimately, finally, accepts the
positions that they bring forward to have deleted. But we do have the ongoing discussions with
them, both myself and the Premier (Mr. Filmon), on occasions when we meet with
representatives of CN, always raise the issue of how important jobs are to us
in
Mr.
Reid: I am aware of the provisions in the contract
for the employees. I am aware that CN
has the advice notice that goes out that they have to consult with the unions
and give them an idea of what the future holds for the employees.
I was also of the impression that the
minister's department is kept apprised of what plans are ongoing and the answer
that he gave here, right now, does not give any kind of an indication of what
these employees of this particular operation can expect. It is very important to their future that
they could have some opportunity to plan.
They do not just need something dropped on them at a moment's notice and
say, okay, that is the end of your career, go out and find another job. It is very difficult to do in these
situations these days where jobs are not that plentiful. That is one of the reasons why I would like
to know if CN has given the minister any indication.
I know what their percentage employment levels
are in the province, and if the minister cannot give me a direct answer on what
CN's plans are, I can appreciate that, just tell me that. If there are some
things that he has taken in confidence that CN has not finalized at this
present time, that they are still contemplating, he can give me that indication
as well.
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, there are no secrets here
as far as I am concerned. I am not aware
of any further layoffs at this time and invariably, I think I want to indicate
to the member, I want to be cautious as well because I think CN feel their
responsibility to their workers and to the unions, and usually they are the
ones who become aware of it. I am not
aware of actually a game plan of CN's much in advance of what the union is
becoming aware of it, because they basically sit down and discuss with them, so
I have no dark hidden secrets. I am not aware
of any major changes that are coming forward at the present time.
Mr.
Reid: Because this was quite an interest to the
province in the last session where we found out that CP Rail was diverting traffic
around the province of Manitoba, which, in turn, took away job opportunities in
this province and much needed revenue for the province.
Can the minister indicate whether or not
Mr.
Driedger: I am certainly not going to be defensive of
any of the actions that CP has taken, but I want to indicate that CP acquired
the Soo Line, the Soo rail line in the States and the route that they are
shooting some of their product through there is 200 miles closer, I think, by
using that route. What we have tried to
do is try and make us be more competitive as a province, because the member is
well aware that between ourselves and
What we have done by lowering it a cent a
litre for the railways is to signal the fact that we think that they are a very
important component in our economy here, and I believe it impacts to the tune
of approximately a million dollars‑‑$1.6 million between the two
railways, the impact that it has.
Basically, in my discussions with them I have indicated they would have
liked to see more, yes, but at least it is an indicator that we realize the
concern that they have, and we have tried to address it to some degree.
Mr.
Reid: I provide this for the minister's information
then, because it came to my attention a short time ago. CP Rail is still continuing to divert traffic
around the province. In fact, they are
now currently diverting new traffic that has been generated recently around the
province. It was in one of their publications,
that shipments that they managed to get from another producer in western
So it is not only the coal and the potash, we
are talking a product like liquid sulphur.
So there are other products that they are running around the province as
well which are taking away the job opportunities and revenues for the province.
I draw that to the minister's information so
that quite possibly he can have some consultation with the railway, with CP Rail,
to find out how much further they are willing to pursue this direction that
they have obviously taken that is only in their own best interest.
* (1650)
Mr.
Driedger: Naturally, I am very concerned about the
comments the member has made as it is my understanding that they are doing that
only where they are supplying the American markets, but I will take note of
that and try and get further information and see exactly what is happening.
Mr.
Reid: To switch to another mode of transportation,
to the airlines, can the minister give me an indication on the status, any
progress being made at the open skies discussions, what point we are at with
those negotiations. Are there further negotiations
that are contemplated in the near future, and are any meetings scheduled
between this minister and any of the federal ministers dealing with this open
skies?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to indicate, based
on the position that we took forward to the federal government that we wanted
to have a role to play in there. They
accepted that recommendation, and we have‑‑one of my staff people,
prior to every meeting, gets briefed and gets debriefed after the meeting. The member can accept the fact that we could
not all be at the bargaining table, but, as I indicated, we got briefed and debriefed
right after every meeting.
There will be another three or four rounds of
negotiations taking place before anything comes forward. I want to indicate, I believe that the
federal government is conscientious. In
my conversations with Lewis, who was the minister at the time when this
started, indicated that unless it was going to be a better deal for
I understand that cabotage has already been
removed from part of the discussions, and that is not on the table. So the last time that these negotiations took
place, I am talking previous to this round that is in progress now, years ago
we came out with a very bad deal for Canada, and I want to indicate that
hopefully this is going to be better.
I have major concerns about the financial
status of our two national carriers, both Canadian and Air
I indicated to the member the other day when I
spoke, the concern that I have about both Canadian or Air
Mr.
Reid: I know the minister's department will be
involved with those. It is obvious that
we should play a significant role in any of those discussions that are ongoing
because of the impact that it is going to have and could have on the
A few weeks back, I raised with the minister
the statements that have been made by a senior official with Canadian Airlines International,
where they said that the reservation system for Canadian Airlines in the city
of
This causes me concern, because we stand to
lose in the order‑‑I believe it was‑‑75 jobs that were
on the line in this situation. These are
obviously historically well‑paying jobs. Also the other fact that
Canadian Airlines, CAI, had been contemplating Winnipeg as a possible location
for their weights and balance function, something which would bring jobs to the
city of Winnipeg and to the province of Manitoba that may not be now under
consideration, something that I think, while the minister's department may not
be directly involved, maybe Industry, Trade and Tourism could be involved in
some programs that are there.
It is also my understanding that the
communications equipment that is involved in the reservation systems for CAI
here may not be state of the art, and it may be an opportunity for MTS to become
involved in this type of function to lend some support to upgrading of this
particular equipment and technology.
Has the minister's department undertaken to
have these discussions with CAI to see if there is a role that the government
can play in the process of retaining these jobs here and possibly bringing
other jobs to the province?
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in terms of the
reservation staff people that were working here, it is my understanding that from
the time that the member raised it, there are no changes contemplated. However, I want to indicate that there is a possibility
if our carriers line up with American carriers, there could be that
danger. That is why I am flagging some
of these things.
I want to indicate to the member, as well,
that because we think our location is key, again, using this as a potential hub
here for air freight, we are looking at expanded opportunities there together
with I T and T to see whether we can enhance that kind of employment aspect of
it because of our location. I think there
is receptiveness, there is interest there and, hopefully, we will get some
positive activity developing in that regard.
Mr.
Reid: It is obvious these jobs are important to us,
and I hope the minister will share with his colleagues in the other departments
the concerns that we have about retaining these jobs here, because I think
there is a role that we can play to encourage CAI to remain a part of the
province of Manitoba and to retain these jobs.
There are other questions with regard to the
airline jobs which I will raise in a moment, but I want to get back to the railway
portion as well. There were some
concerns about the producer cars, the short lines in the grain‑dependent
branch lines. Have any policy
discussions been ongoing with the minister's department and the federal
government to determine if there is going to be a consolidation of the producer
car locations? That is the impression
that we get now, because some of the producers are being rejected in their
applications when they want to have producer cars spotted. Certain pieces of line are being abandoned.
Can the minister give any indication of what
the status is on the branch line abandonment and any short‑line
opportunities that are being contemplated for the
Mr.
Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all
indicate that‑‑and I think I have brought this forward in the House
many times‑‑the four western provinces have put forward a position regarding
rail‑line abandonment and how it should be addressed before any lines
were abandoned. That position has not
changed.
However, we anticipate that there is going to
be ongoing activity in terms of rail‑line abandonment by both lines, and
we will continue to take and monitor that very carefully in terms of the impact
that it has. As far as the short lines
are concerned,
* (1700)
At the same time, we want to make very sure
that we are trying to get as much information as we can in terms of the short lines
that have been experimentally operated in Saskatchewan to find out the details,
so that we can give proper information to anybody who wants to get into it, so
we do not sort of snow somebody into getting into something that might look
appealing and, ultimately, financially would not work out well.
We are gathering that kind of information at
the present time so that we can take and speak to people that have an interest
in this regard with qualified information.
We are developing the legislation right now. I would anticipate that we could probably have
that legislation on the books for next year in order to allow the accommodation
of the short line.
Madam
Chairperson: Order, please.
The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, this committee
will reconvene at 8 p.m. this evening.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
IN SESSION
Committee Changes
Mr.
George Hickes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member
for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections be amended as follows:
Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Committee change.
Mr.
Speaker: Okay, you want to do a committee change first?
Mr.
Gaudry: Yes.
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member for St. Boniface, with
a committee change.
Mr.
Gaudry: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for
Mr.
Speaker: Now we will do the honourable member's
resolution.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 37‑‑Distance Education
Mr.
Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
WHEREAS high quality education is crucial to a
healthy economy; and
WHEREAS in the international economy, success
is becoming increasingly dependent upon the skills of the work force and the ability
to innovate; and
WHEREAS many Manitobans live in small
communities far away from post‑secondary education institutions or in
communities too small to have the range of primary and secondary options that
are available in larger centres; and
WHEREAS all Manitobans should have access to
education services; and
WHEREAS the development of
WHEREAS individuals receiving education in
their community are more likely to remain in those communities afterward,
thereby making much needed and lasting contributions; and
WHEREAS distance education technology is
becoming less expensive and more readily available; and
WHEREAS a concerted effort in distance
education by the government could place
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative
Assembly of Manitoba urge the government of Manitoba to consider increasing its
efforts to establish and promote distance education programs and technologies
in order to improve the education available to Manitoba citizens, upgrade the
skills of the Manitoba work force and put Manitoba at the forefront of an
emerging technological service industry.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Gaudry: The world is changing rapidly, and the only
way for
Mr. Speaker, post‑secondary education
requires people to move from rural communities to
Distance education is a program where
education is taken from the cities, moved to the rural communities, so that
people can access education in their own communities. This enables them to remain in their
communities, eliminating the aspect of leaving their community and their
families and the social structure they utilize.
Mr. Speaker, this is important and good,
because rural companies will have access to better trained employees and will not
be forced to move to large centres to obtain a more skilled work force, thereby
enabling jobs to remain in rural
Technology is increasingly expanding in the
service of a video conferencing aspect, where teachers can be projected right into
a rural classroom or community centre, making it available for our children in
rural areas. Distance education can also
improve elementary and secondary education.
Often schools are too small to justify hiring teachers in specialized
courses, or they cannot afford the courses that are given in rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, distance education technology can
connect a number of communities and make such classes viable, thereby providing
more options for rural Manitoba, in the larger centres of rural Manitoba like
Brandon, Thompson, Flin Flon. All those areas
have access for our rural children for a better education.
In order for rural communities to prosper,
there must be opportunities for residents to access services and training in their
own communities. It is important that we
as legislators make that accessible to these rural areas.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure members of this House
know of people who have had to leave their communities for educational opportunities,
and they can attest that, more often than not, these same people have not
returned to their home communities. They would like to return to the
communities, but because it is not accessible to them, they find work elsewhere
at the same time. Distance education
would decrease the chances of this happening too often, as it is happening in
our days.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to
emphasize that education and training is the future key to economic development
of the community at the provincial, national and global levels. Maintaining a
viable rural economy means that we must invest in the skills of the residents
and our children in the rural areas. We must commit to that process now, and we
should do it, as legislators in
Thank you very much.
* (1710)
Hon.
Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I would
like to take a little bit of time to speak about the issue of distance
education and how meaningful that we on this side of the House recognize that
it is to education in
I would like to start by discussing our
recognition of the importance of a skilled work force, and that there is no
doubt that the skilled work force of Manitoba will add to the economy of
Manitoba, that when people are technically trained and when people have
developed the skills that they feel are important, we receive a benefit
economically. Individuals also maintain
a benefit because they are able then to have that sense of fulfillment and that
internal gratification that comes from education.
The skilled work force, Mr. Speaker, also is
important because we are talking about a movement to a training culture and we
are talking about a movement to lifelong learning. We now recognize that education does not just
stop when people finish one level of school and that education is not
necessarily confined to just textbooks or exams or the classroom setting, but that
education in Manitoba can be accessed and can become very meaningful through a
number of different mediums and distance education is certainly one of them.
We also recognize in
We have recognized on this side of the House
that it is important for a student, wherever that person lives in Manitoba, to
be able to continue a post‑secondary education or, Mr. Speaker, in this
time of a very high mobility, that a student may move to another part of this
province and be able to pick up their educational process and feel that they
have maintained a standard. I think it
is very important when we have an opportunity to speak of students in rural
In the time that I have been minister I have
had the opportunity to meet with a number of rural school divisions who have
explained why they believe that distance education is so important to their
particular school and also to their community, and that it will allow students
to remain within their community and to focus on their educational programs
while being close to home. I think that
we have recognized that that is an important aspect to family life as well.
When I spoke with representatives from
northern divisions, they voiced a number of the same concerns for their
students, that in some cases there is a declining enrollment and in other cases
they wanted to focus on the issue of isolation, and that in some northern
communities there is no access to other communities within a reasonably short
period of time or reasonably short distance.
The goal that was put forward by some of those communities was that
their students, particularly their focus in school divisions, was on the K‑12
side, that their students would have the opportunity to have the variety of
courses and the availability of courses, even though their geographical
location may cause them to be more isolated.
In the northern part of
I certainly found that in the opportunities I
had to meet with divisions, it was a very important experience to hear directly
from them what distance education meant to their communities. I certainly have been interested, as I have
learned more about distance education, both on the mechanical and the technical
side, as well as the opportunities of distance education.
I am very pleased in my department that there
has been a very close co‑operation between our Distance Education and
Technology Branch and our curriculum branch because we recognize that curriculums
must be adapted to distance education and that there may be some necessity to
work with those curriculums so that they are best transmitted through distance
education. So I think that co‑operation
to provide the best possible source and type of distance education program is
very important. Also, the distance education
department is looking not just at a single, kind of passive transmission of a
course, but we also have looked at some interactive courses as well where
students may be very much involved, not just passively in receiving the
information but interactively. I have
learned in the time that I have been minister of the tremendous number of
possibilities technologically in the use of distance education.
On the post‑secondary side, Manitoba
also has now closed a gap which did exist within the mid‑'80s with
Alberta and British Columbia and Ontario, and we are now very interested and
have operational First Year Distance Education, and that does allow young
people or adults‑‑and I think it is very important for us to
recognize that those people who are studying at the post‑secondary level
are not always necessarily sequential learners, but they may in fact be adults
with other kinds of responsibilities and families within their own homes, and
it is not always so easy for those people to leave their communities and come
to a place like Winnipeg or Brandon to study for their post‑secondary
interests.
So the First Year Distance Education program
has allowed those people to study within their communities and to remain with their
families. Other benefits, of course, are
that people then do remain within their communities and communities may have
some influence over a course of study and interest that an individual may bring
in terms of courses that they have chosen.
In many cases, those individuals may then choose to remain within their home
communities and that allows them and their families not to be dislocated, and
it also gives the community the benefit of that particularly well‑trained
individual at the post‑secondary level.
I found it interesting when I met with some of
the rural and the northern communities that they also wanted to focus on this issue
of continuing education and lifelong learning.
There was a recognition, particularly in the rural parts of Manitoba
where farming has, in some cases, been very difficult for some families, that
where people had the opportunity and the time that they were able to take part
in distance education and to continue to develop their skills so that, in some
cases, another family member may be able to enter into another kind of work, if
that is what the family member wished to do.
I think it is important to say that for the
people that I have spoken to since I have been minister and the representation that
we have had as government, that distance education can focus on benefits on the
K to 12 side, particularly in allowing a volume of course content to be
offered, and it also has been important on the post‑secondary side to
allow students at the post‑secondary level to remain within their home
communities. It has also been noted as a
very valuable tool for continuing lifelong learning.
We have spoken many times in education about
the fact that we are moving towards this lifelong learning and training culture
where people are not feeling obligated to complete an education sequentially,
or if they wish to change a job that because they may be over 25 they cannot
continue, because we know now that they certainly can.
I think, too, it is very important to note
that the FYDE or First Year Distance Education program, which is on the post‑secondary
side, has been a three‑year pilot project. It has met with a great deal of
interest. That pilot project is coming into
its evaluation year, and we will be looking at the success of that project and
also how things might be done differently, if in fact that is the case. So we are looking very much forward to that
particular evaluation.
* (1720)
I also want to say that, because there has
been a recognition, a very strong recognition by this government and by the
Department of Education of the value of distance education, I have set up
within the department a task force on distance education. This task force has, I believe, many benefits
because, first of all, it is a representative task force. It has not only members of the Department of
Education, but it also has other membership‑‑I reference
specifically Manitoba Association of School Trustees also sits on that task
force‑‑so that the issues and the problem solving relating to
distance education can be done at a wider level. That task force has been very active. It is
in fact broken into subcommittees as well, because there is the technological
and there is the financial and a number of issues, curriculum issues, to be
explored.
I do look forward to an interim report from that
task force in June, and I look forward to a full report by that task force at
some point in the fall.
So, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be very
important again to underline our expression of interest and importance in
distance education; however, I feel that we can perhaps more accurately reflect
those particular interests and goals by offering an amendment to the resolution
of the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry). I would like to take a moment to offer this
amendment now.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for
St. Vital (Mrs. Render), that the resolution be amended by deleting all words following
"THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED" and substituting the following:
That the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba
support the efforts and encourage participation of those who enroll in a
program that enables northern and rural residents to participate and receive the
benefits of education through this government's distance education initiatives.
Motion
presented.
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable minister's amendment is in
order.
Mr.
Steve Ashton (Thompson): The amendment may be in order, but I think the
degree with which this government, once again, seems to want to go to prevent
any open discussion by the way of resolutions that might be passed in this
private members' hour just amazes me.
What was the difficulty with the original resolution by the member for
St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)? It said, Mr.
Speaker, take the base that is there and build on it.
What did the government do? It said, take the base that is there and
congratulate themselves. I mean, that is
what they do on every single resolution that is brought before the Legislature. I must say that I can understand their need
to do that, because as we see this government go on and on in terms of its
term, we see increasingly that it is not getting much in the way of
congratulations on anything. So I think
what we are seeing here is a deliberate attempt to raise the sagging morale of
the Conservative Party by at least having them, each other, congratulate
themselves‑‑the mutual admiration society here, the Conservative
caucus of Manitoba.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, what they are
going to do next, because I have seen private members' hour sink to probably
its lowest level in the 10 years I have been here. I have never seen so many self‑congratulatory
resolutions and amendments other than brought in by this government. Maybe there is a distinct relationship here,
that the lower one gets in popularity with this government, the more
congratulatory resolutions have to be brought in. I think there is a direct connection. In fact, if we see this continue, as I am
sure we will, in upcoming sessions I think it says a lot, the fact that this
government has to get somebody to congratulate it, so it gets itself to
congratulate it.
It really is a waste of time of this
Legislature. Let us talk about distance
education; let us talk about the kind of amendments that could perhaps have
been made, although I think the resolution was quite acceptable in the form it
was in, because it attempted, I think‑‑and I will say the intent of
the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) was clear, was to go beyond merely
addressing an issue in a general sense, but he said there is a base, and let us
build on it.
There is a base that is there in terms of
distance education that has been put in place the last number of years; let us
build on it. It is not a new
concept. It has been used by other jurisdictions
in terms of
So it is not complete in that sense. It does not deal with some of the other
concerns that could be expressed about other forms of ACCESS education, and
surely‑‑and I am surprised‑‑following the announcement
last Friday in the House about concerns about the future of the ACCESS
programs, concerns that I expressed in this House during Education Estimates,
that I know a number of our caucus members have raised both during Education
Estimates and in Question Period. That
is not included in terms of this, because these are all part of an effort to
get education out into the communities, get education beyond Brandon and beyond
the city of Winnipeg and get it available in different communities. That surely would have been more appropriate
in terms of an amendment. That is a new
development. That development came about
after the member for St. Boniface introduced this on the Order Paper several
months ago.
The bottom line is there is a real crisis in
terms of ACCESS education in this province that is going to lead, if we are not
careful, to a situation where we are going to see the elimination of the ACCESS
programs, because what is happening is the federal government is not living up
to its responsibility to fund treaty students.
We are seeing already that is impacting in delivery of programs. In the case of BUNTEP, a number of the
locations‑‑I know in the case of Thompson, that has been indicated
by the BUNTEP directors as one of the reasons there will no longer be BUNTEP
available in Thompson as has been the case in previous years.
One of the factors was in terms of student
funding, but we are seeing again that the federal government, if it is going to
continue student funding, is only going to do it in terms of existing
students. We are going to see the system
strangulated. It may continue for a number of years, but it will not continue in
its fullest form unless there is a commitment to long‑term funding for
ACCESS programs.
I have no hesitation on the record, Mr.
Speaker, saying we need that commitment.
We cannot simply take one particular aspect of education that deals with
the needs beyond the city of
* (1730)
We need a new model, I would suggest, Mr.
Speaker, that goes beyond simply the current umbrella that is in place in terms
of distance education. We should have a
northern and rural university, polytechnic, whatever term you want, which can combine
the delivery of all the various programs.
That, I think, is one of the key aspects.
I want to stress in terms of distance
education that the use of new technology is fine, but it has been the
experience of many who have lectured, who have delivered programs, that you
need a component of direct lecturing, direct hands‑on student assistance in
terms of instructors. You cannot just
rely on technology that is still far from fully developed which does not allow
the same kind of interaction as a normal classroom does.
That is one of the things that I would have
thought the government might have wanted to address in terms of distance education,
Mr. Speaker, is the fact that this government could be looking at that, should
be looking at that, having a blend of that and making sure that distance
education does have a component of the kind of resources that have been
available through IUN traditionally in terms of local communities and bringing
instructors up from the main university campuses. Students need the full access
to that kind of education.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I have said
this for many years in this House, that there has been a great deal of experience
with Inter‑Universities North which recently celebrated its twentieth
year. I had the opportunity to attend the
banquet of Inter‑Universities North commemorating the twentieth year of
the various educational access that it creates.
I at the time said that‑‑It really
is interesting. I graduated from high
school the same year the IUN was founded.
In those days it was virtually impossible to be able to attain an education
outside of the main campuses at
I have seen over the years the problems in
terms of the North in particular, and it applies to rural communities as
well. If you live in the city, it is
expensive enough to continue your education, but if you add to that
transportation costs of room and board, of going to a major campus, it is a
significant burden, both on the students and on their parents. So it is very difficult, and that is why I am
very pleased to see over the years that major initiatives have been taken to
get education outside of the
In the North, in a way, because we had the
least access to a certain degree because of IUN, we have actually gone the
opposite direction in terms of rural areas.
I would say many rural communities actually have less access than many
northern communities, because they do not have the same kind of IUN availabilities. The bottom line is, I think, that is a healthy
process.
It has not always been easy and there have
been challenges. I remember in 1977 when the then‑Conservative government
cut Inter‑Universities North in its entirety, and there was an uproar. At the universities there was an uproar in
terms of northern communities, and it was reinstated in a reduced form, but the
bottom line was the support was there. I
am predicting that if the government tries to trade off different programs in the
future, they will face the same sort of problem.
We need distance education. We need the direct educational component of
Inter‑Universities North. We need
also the ACCESS programs, and we will never accept this government, for
whatever reason and for whatever faults that may lie with the federal government,
cutting the ACCESS programs. The bottom
line is, we will fight the same way that people fought in 1977 against the cuts
that were then introduced in terms of IUN.
We will be fighting for the provincial government to live up to its responsibility
to all Manitobans, including through the ACCESS programs which have pioneered,
which have really pioneered, in the same sort of spirit that the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) references. I
would say that is the area we are most outstanding for, is the ACCESS programs
we have pioneered in this country.
So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot say we will have
the one, the distance education, and that will somehow suffice to make the contribution
of the provincial government felt in terms of education, because it is an
integral part. We need all the parts of
what we are dealing with here. We need
the kinds of facilities that IUN has in terms of direct lecturing, et cetera. We
need the first‑year and second‑year distance education using a combination
of direct lecturing and also teleconferencing and other mechanisms, but we also
most definitely need the ACCESS programs, the BUNTEP programs in the various
communities in the North. We need the
social work program. We need the
northern nursing program.
The bottom line is all of those components go
into giving full access.
Hon. James Downey (Minister of Northern
Affairs): . . . it was us who gave them
the northern nursing program.
Mr.
Ashton: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Native
Affairs says it was them that gave the northern nursing program. He obviously does not know what he is talking
about. The northern nursing program has
been in place since the mid‑1980s‑‑[interjection!
Well, coming from the minister who has seen
the Northern Development Agreement expire, with no federal‑provincial
funding for the Northern Development Agreement, the main reason why the ACCESS
programs is in jeopardy today is because of the incompetence of that
minister. Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult
to sit here and listen to him from his seat talking about something he does not
know about.
The northern nursing program was established
in the 1980s in Thompson by the then NDP government, which established the
social work program in Thompson and also established here in the core area.
The Minister of Northern and Native Affairs
should know that, and if he spent more time listening and less time talking
from his seat, he might learn that, because those programs are in jeopardy.
In conclusion, this kind of amendment, Mr.
Speaker, is completely useless, is completely pointless. It serves no purpose whatsoever, and I would
suggest if the Conservatives want to congratulate themselves they do so behind
the closed doors of their caucus room, in the confines of their caucus room,
and not waste the time of the Legislature with yet another amendment, with yet
another resolution that has essentially been watered down to the point of
saying nothing other than the fact that this government needs to congratulate
itself.
Let them congratulate themselves on their
record on education. We will not. The people of Manitoba will not either, and
let us get back to some serious debate in this House in private members' hour
about the real issues, not this kind of nonsensical amendment that we will be
opposing.
Mrs.
Sharon Carstairs (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on this amendment. The
original purpose of what I was going to say today was that I thought that the
member the depute de St. Boniface had introduced a resolution which did not chastise
the government in any way, did not say anything except that he wanted to urge
the government of the province of Manitoba to consider increasing its efforts.
The minister in her own Education Estimates
admitted that they were not going far enough, that there was much more ground that
needed to be covered, so why would she decide that she had to introduce this
kind of an amendment to this resolution, which clearly indicates that they are
not willing to go further in the whole field of distance education? They are asking us to support the effort
which, by her own admission in Estimates, is not going as far as she would like
it to go and that there is much more work that needs to be done.
I think that it is incumbent upon all of us in
this Chamber to understand the value of distance education as a new technology. It is not a panacea. It is not under any circumstances going to
solve all of the problems of education in rural or northern
We tend to think of distance education as a
technology which is only a post‑secondary educational model, but it is
not. It can be used as early as
Kindergarten. It can be used to provide,
within a classroom milieu where there are great divergencies in the potential
of individual students, an opportunity for a gifted child, for example, to get
hooked up with the technology in another community that will give that child
one‑on‑one teaching through the use of technology, through the use
of a computer, through use of a modem, to the use of a television screen, allow
that child access into another classroom someplace else in the province of
Manitoba where gifted educational programming may be conducted.
It also gives the same opportunity for a child
who needs resource work to be hooked up to the same kind of technology, where
that program could not be given in a rural centre. Because of this new technology, that child
can have access. That classroom teacher
can have skills at his or her fingertips that normally would not be available,
for which they were not trained, for which they specifically did not have the
skills, but distance education can beam in those new skills to the teacher and
the student in that room.
* (1740)
As you move through the educational stream,
some very wonderful things can happen.
In my dialogue with many teachers throughout the
So when the small high school looks at what it
must offer, it says I must offer physics, I must offer chemistry, but I need
not offer biology. But, the young
student who is very interested in biology need not be denied that opportunity,
if distance education can literally hook that youngster up through a distance education
program with a program perhaps being offered in a northern high school, in
another rural high school, or indeed in an urban high school.
There are some interesting programs in terms
of piloting going on at the present time.
One specifically has to do with the math program. Unfortunately, to my dismay, I learned that the
piloting of this program was going on in Winnipeg, and I asked that question in
Estimates, and I must admit I did not exactly get a satisfactory answer, but
the reality is that I wonder why you would try to pilot a distance ed program
in the city of Winnipeg when the youngsters that you are most desirous of
serving are those who do not live in the city of Winnipeg and who live in rural
Manitoba or northern Manitoba.
One would think that the kinks of a program,
which is the purpose of piloting, would be better worked out if the piloting was
taking place in the milieu where ultimately that program would be used to the
greatest extent. That, unfortunately, is
not where the piloting is taking place, and hopefully in the future we will
look to piloting the programs in the specific cases where students will have to
access them.
We move into the post‑secondary level
and some very interesting programs through distance technology are taking place
right now. We know that residents of
northern
Now we have all heard, I think to some degree,
the horror stories of the biology class at the
Obviously, if you can teach biology classes at
the University of Manitoba by video tape and video screen, you certainly can do
that in remote communities, hopefully with live instructors that can be hooked
up by modems so that there can in fact be at the end of that lecture an
exchange of information in a question and answer situation so that, if students
have questions about the lecture, if they have questions about the experiment
that was conducted in the lab, if they have questions about the problem solving,
for example, in a math course, then they will be able to connect with a
professor, with a teaching assistant through the use of modems, through the use
of computer technology and distance ed technology available.
It is a very, very exciting new form of
education available, but I caution everybody in the Chamber that it is not a
panacea. Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that I was teaching in the days of
experiments with calculators. They were
all of a sudden going to solve all of the problems for math instruction. They did not.
I also was a teacher early in the days of team teaching and, somehow or
other, team teaching‑‑if you could take two teachers and they could
each teach their specialty area and they could merge the classes together, this
would be an exciting innovation and this would solve all of your problems in education. No, it did not solve all the problems of
education, but it is a good technology and some teachers still take advantage
of it. I remember when television sets,
all of a sudden with video tapes‑‑they were going to solve all of
the problems of education. They did not
solve all of the problems in education.
And distance ed technology is not going to solve all the problems in
education either.
In education, if we have suffered from one
failing, it is what I call the pendulum disease. It is a disease in which you say this
particular form of educational experience is not working so we must try
another. Well, we take the entire
pendulum over to the other end of the program and then we discover several years
later that that is not working either.
Perhaps there was a balance somewhere in the middle, but we never tried
the balance. We always went from one extreme to the other extreme of the educational
pendulum.
New math‑‑some of the children of
the members of this House experienced the so‑called new math. I could never understand why everybody found
it so complex, because it still was adding, subtracting, multiplying, dividing,
and still dealt with the 10 numbers, but it became new math. Well, lo and behold, I read a study two years
ago by the man who developed new math, who said, gee, after evaluation it did
not do any of the things he thought it was going to do.
Now we find a teaching concept in language
arts called whole language. Whole
language is supposed to teach reading in new and innovative ways. There is not to be spelling; there is not to
be phonics. There is to be sight‑reading;
they are supposed to read for understanding.
Well, the United States Congress became so concerned about whole
language that they undertook a test of whole language and, guess what? The person who evaluated whole language said
it works very well for bright kids because, believe it or not, bright kids have
always done that. They have always learned
to read by sight; they have always learned to read for understanding; but it is
not doing much good for average kids, and it is not doing much good for slow
learners. So, once more, we have got
whole language in all our schools, and there are people out there saying the
pendulum has swung too far yet once again.
So I want to warn people that distance
education is a wonderful concept. It can
allow us to develop programs in new and innovative ways, but it will not be a
panacea. It will not solve all the
problems for every child within the educational system.
There is a real need in the
So I hoped that this was a resolution that we
could all support, but now, of course, that the minister has introduced her amendment,
it is no longer a resolution that we can support, because it is not enough to
maintain the status quo. We must move
on, we must move forward, and that is all the depute de St. Boniface asked for
us to do, that we would move forward with no criticism of the government. I think it is most sad that the Minister of
Education (Mrs. Vodrey), who recognized herself that we must move forward on
this has chosen to play petty politics with this thing, to introduce an
amendment which need not be introduced.
There was no deep criticism of the government in the depute de St.
Boniface's original resolution. Now,
instead of having unanimous resolution that would encourage all governments of
whatever political stripe to move forward on this, we have tragically taken a
step backward.
* (1750)
Mrs.
Shirley Render (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, I think my ears heard correctly
when the member for Thompson said that he was a little upset that the
honourable minister had moved an amendment that simply congratulated the
government. I do not think the honourable
minister did that at all. My ears heard
words such as: that it be resolved that
the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the efforts and encourage
participation of those who enroll in a distance education program. To me, that is not congratulating the
government at all. The minister talked
about, as I say, encouraging the participation of those who enroll in a program
that enables northern and rural residents to participate and receive the
benefits of education through this government's distance education initiatives.
I think everyone here in this House should
support all initiatives whether it is begun by this particular government or whether
it is an initiative that was begun by the previous government and simply
carried on by this government. I think
all of us recognize that as the years go by there are advances in the technological
aspects of how we communicate with people, and I think this is something that
all of us here in this province can be very proud of, that this province, this
province called Manitoba is a leader in using telecommunications‑based
technology such as satellite technology, audio teleconferencing and computer communications
technology to instruct students at all levels between Kindergarten and Grade
12.
I think all of us here in this province should
be very proud of the fact that with the exception of, I think it is
I think something that should also be pointed
out is that this past year, the satellite network will be increasing the programming
from 350 hours to 475 hours, and that is quite a jump in the programming. This is going to be done at absolutely no increase
in cost to the users of the program.
Just one other thing that I would like to
touch upon is the first‑year distance education program for post‑secondary
students. This program, as many of you
know, was started in September of 1990 and it was introduced at five sites in
remote areas of
This program is in its second year, as both
the minister and the member of the second opposition mentioned. It is a pilot program, but I think already we
recognize that it has been very successful and, in fact, the enrollment for the
most part has increased in each of the two years.
I think something that is also very interesting
to note that in some of the courses, and I understand in calculus, the students
actually gain a higher mark in the calculus courses on an average than those
who take calculus by the regular means, so I am sure there will be a little
research into why that happens.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is about all I want
to say, just to simply conclude with the statement that on this side of the House,
and indeed I would hope that I speak for all members in this House, that I
think we want to continue to support what is in place and in time, of course,
we would hope that we can expand as the needs arise, but of course at all times
we do have to keep in account a balance of exactly where monies go in the educational
programs. We have to make sure that we
maintain the balance between the urban and the rural needs, and I think this government
has done well so far considering that we are in a recession and considering
that when we look across all of this country, we see what is happening with
some of the other provinces. This
government has increased funding to education, and I guess maybe I will end on
a congratulatory note that we have done very well indeed.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to speak again on the amendment
that was brought forward a little earlier this afternoon‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable minister will be closing
debate on the amendment. Is there
anybody else wishing to speak on this?
Mr.
Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few
remarks to this particular resolution, because, after all, the member for St.
Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) put in a lot of effort to bring forward a resolution
which, as the Leader of the Liberal Party (Mrs. Carstairs) pointed out, should
have been supported from all parties in this Chamber. I know when the member for Thompson (Mr.
Ashton) stood up, in fact he gave his indication that the New Democratic Party
supports the resolution. In part, in the
debate that he put on the record, he talked about the amendment and the reason
why the amendment was brought forward.
I concur with a lot of the remarks the member
for Thompson put on the record, that there seems to be a need from this government
to stand up and amend whatever resolution comes before this Chamber. Every amendment that comes forward is one to
pat themselves on the back. Once again
we see this particular amendment acknowledging that the government itself is
doing all sorts of wonderful things, and that there is absolutely no reason to
change what is happening.
Well, we disagree with the minister. When the minister was in the Estimates, as
the Leader of the Liberal Party pointed out, she too disagreed with the
amendment she had brought forward, because even then she acknowledged that
there was in fact a need to increase‑‑more effort, more potential
resources, to ensuring that this program will address more of the needs of the
province.
This is what the member for St. Boniface (Mr.
Gaudry), in bringing forward the resolution, was wanting to see. It was, I believe, a resolution that the
government could have allowed to come to a vote, could have allowed individuals
in many cases, on this particular resolution, but many other resolutions to be voted
upon. But, as the member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton) has pointed out quite correctly, that far too often we now see private
members' hour when it comes to debate on resolutions, one in which the
government brings forward an amendment to congratulate themselves, when it
comes to private member's bills, they choose not to speak on them. What the government is doing, as the Minister
of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) points out, is a shame. It really and truly is a shame. That in fact we should be dealing with the
bills and resolutions, such as the resolutions‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable member for
The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the chair
with the understanding that the House will reconvene at 8 p.m. in Committee of
Supply.