LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Wednesday, March 3, 1993
The House met
at 1:30 p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Eric
Stefanson (Minister of Sport): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the Annual
Report 1991‑92 for the Manitoba Horse Racing Commission.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to
introduce a bill for the Minister of Justice?
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
government House leader have leave to introduce a bill?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied.
Bill 16‑The Public Schools Amendment Act
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Labour (Mr. Praznik), that Bill 16, The Public Schools Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur les ecoles publiques, be introduced and that the same be
now received and read a first time.
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable member's bill is on the notice paper, not on the
order paper. The honourable Madam
Minister would need leave to introduce Bill 16.
Does the
honourable minister have leave to introduce Bill 16?
Some
Honourable Members: No.
Mr. Speaker: No. Leave is denied.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Special Needs Programs
Service Availability
Mr. Gary Doer
(Leader of the Opposition): House business is being managed like the
finances of this province.
Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Premier. We were
raising questions all this week about the impact of government decisions on
kids and students in this province.
Yesterday we
learned, and we have had confirmation from parents and others, that specialists
working with special needs kids in rural Manitoba have been told that they will
be laid off at the end of June, some 66 staff working in hearing impairment
issues, speech impairment, behavioural problems, working in rural Manitoba,
have been told they will be laid off in the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to know from the Premier what impact these layoffs will have on
children with hearing impairments, with learning impairments, with behavioural
impairments and impairments that are, unfortunately, germane to some kids in
rural Manitoba that need special needs programs.
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is true, a service
that we have provided through our department for the past 20 years is now a
very well‑established service. It
is well established within the divisions.
So what we have done is we now, through our funding formula, provide
both the operating costs and also the administrative costs for school divisions
to hire these clinicians within their own divisions. It is simply a change in who employs these
clinicians.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I would
quote the minister from May 7 of 1992:
Due to the large number of students with speech and language problems,
the service is stretched and follow‑up activities are not always as
extensive as we would like them to be.
These kids are
the most vulnerable kids in rural
I would like to
ask the Premier how he can justify cutting back these services to special needs
kids in the
* (1335)
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I think it
is important to give the member all of the information. Nineteen school divisions presently provide
this service. Ten of those school
divisions operate outside of the city of
Now we have
that same concern for young people and their parents. I would like to assure this House that there
will still be the funds flowing through our funding formula to employ those
specialists. However, they will be
employed at the local level at the school board level, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, I do not
know how the Tories across the way could clap for a decision like that on the
children of rural
Mr. Speaker,
there is a declining enrollment in school divisions of rural
I would like to
ask the Premier to overrule his Minister of Education, to overrule the Minister
of Finance (Mr. Manness) and his cutting back on special needs children in this
province and maintain those services for all kids across
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, let me say
again that we have a strong belief that this service continue and because of
that we have, through our funding formula, increased the grants for a
clinician, increased the grants to $45,000.
We did that last year because we believed that the service was so
important. This year through this
action, we are now saying to school divisions that they would become the
employers, they would then have the control.
Mr. Speaker, in
terms of special needs let me also make it clear to the member that we
increased our special needs funding last year, and this year through our
announcement we have also increased the amount of money flowing into Level II
and Level III grants to pay attention to those particular concerns and issues.
Distance Education
Employee Layoffs
Mr. John
Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.
Speaker, the minister knows very well that the services and the funding that
she is providing is totally inadequate to meet the needs in rural
Manitoba. She knows that and she should
not be attempting to mislead this House.
Because of the
cuts that this government has made over the last number of years and this year
as well, which has resulted in the fact that there are no options available in
many schools, classes are combined.
There are teachers teaching three and four classes in one classroom, different
courses in one classroom. Because distance education is one of the only hopes
for equality of opportunities in education in the small rural divisions, Mr.
Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of Education how she can justify the
cutting of six positions from distance education, which is providing this only
hope, this bridge, for rural small school divisions in Manitoba.
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training):
Yes, we have made some rearrangements in
our distance education for the purposes of a better delivery, because we have
understood, Mr. Speaker, as a result of listening to Manitobans, that distance
education should no longer just be a separate part of education but in fact
should be an integral part of education, should be an integral part of our
curriculum development and our service development. That is what we have done.
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, this
minister did not answer the question, how she is justifying the cuts of six
positions when she says in the Estimates, in her own words last year, that this
was a priority and an expanding area.
How can she justify the cutting of six positions?
Mrs.
Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member obviously did not hear
me. What I have said to him and to
Manitobans is that this is a very important part of education in
Mr. Plohman: Mr. Speaker, since school
divisions are telling this minister and telling us daily in communications and
phone calls and letters that in fact the services to children are being
affected by her draconian cuts, by her deep cuts in education, I want to ask
this minister: Will she now admit to
this House and to the people of Manitoba that in fact the services to children
are in fact being impacted in a negative way, and will she now admit that this
has been acceptable for her right from the beginning in her decision making?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, again let
me say, services to children are of utmost importance for this department, and
because services to children are so important, within our funding formula this
year we did what we said. We modified
that funding formula, we adapted the funding formula. We did so particularly out of interest to
children who need support for extreme behavioural and emotional disorders and
hearing impaired children. We increased
the funding to make sure that was available for the children of this province. We have also said, as school boards consider
their budgeting process this year, to please look at areas of budgeting that do
not affect children and programs.
* (1340)
Education System Reform
Program Development Support Services
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education.
The minister has told us in this House that she is interested in
education. She has told us that she is
engaged in a reform process, yet every day we see actions which belie any
leadership and any real reform initiatives.
Today we hear that program development support services will be
decimated. Over 50 staff years will be
gone, and services will be cut.
Will the
minister explain to this House how this decision fits into her education
reform, a reform which to date is illusionary?
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, let me say first of all that the
Child Care and Development branch will not be decimated, that it will continue
to support school divisions. It will
provide for school divisions supervision for those clinicians whom they hire,
that supervision that is very important for clinicians to get their
certification. We will also continue to
monitor the ADAP or the special education plans. We will also continue to act as
consultants. We will also assist those
school divisions in their hiring process.
If they would like some assistance in the hiring process, then we are
more than prepared to do that.
In answer to
the reform part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I have answered that this afternoon. We have understood that in some areas, and I
will use distance education as a very specific example, that distance education
is no longer seen as a separate part of education. In the process of reform, we are moving to
integrate it into education in
Report Tabling Request
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): We
have no difficulty with this government embarking on reform in education. Will the minister take a page out of her
colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and take some time and actually
write a document that talks about education reform?
Mr. Speaker,
education officials, people concerned about education in
Some
Honourable Members: Oh,
oh.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Crescentwood, your
question, please.
Ms. Gray: This is a serious issue
because education officials want to know what the education reform plan
is. It is not enough for the minister to
stand in this House and spout out sentences. We want to see a reform plan, a
blueprint. Will she table that document?
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. The
honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): I think it is important to remind my
honourable friend again that the education officials have been involved in the
process as we move into educational reform, that we have made sure that their
views of what reform should look like, how that reform should be accomplished,
have been integrated and that we have taken a great deal of time to work with
those groups.
We have worked
with parents in Manitoba to make sure that the views of parents are considered,
the views of labour and business and industry, so that the goals of education
and the accomplishments of education are also views that they would like us to
consider, too.
Ms. Gray: The Minister of Education
asks that we listen to her. We ask that she listen to what education officials
are saying in
Mr. Speaker: Question, please.
Ms. Gray: Is she prepared to table
a document to let us know what type of education reform she has planned rather
than just slashing and cutting‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Mrs. Vodrey: I certainly reject any
suggestion of rural and urban school divisions having to compete for attention
to listen. I have made an attempt to
visit personally as many school divisions as possible. I have made sure that I have met with their
executive groups and have taken into consideration how they would like reform
to look.
Mr. Speaker,
what my honourable friend seems to say is that she would in her own mind
develop a document, then put it out and then say to people this is what it
should be, but we have in fact taken a much different tactic. We have taken the time to listen to what the
goals of that reform might be to then put together the goals of reform, and as
we announced in the throne speech, we are moving towards the education
innovation forum, where the process of reform can be discussed.
* (1345)
Health Care System Reform
Pediatric Surgery Restrictions
Mr. Dave
Chomiak (Kildonan): My
question is for the Minister of Health.
The minister's
own action plan talks about moving treatment from more expensive facilities to
less expensive facilities. The
minister's own plan on page 15 says that teaching hospitals cost $775 per day
while treatment at a community facility could be for $410 per day.
Why is this
minister dictating that all children's surgery in the city of
Hon. Donald
Orchard (Minister of Health): My honourable friend also might acknowledge
that within the process of health care reform, we have indicated that the
direction for the urban hospitals and the teaching hospitals is establishment
of centres of excellence.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to claim the original credit for establishing Children's Hospital
conceptually and developing it as a centre for excellence for inpatient care
for children, but unfortunately that has been a policy of successive
governments since 1975. Sir, that is
what is being accomplished with this consolidation.
That
consolidation of inpatient services, including surgery, including medical needs
for inpatient care of children in Manitoba, is being consolidated at the
Children's Hospital for two reasons:
first of all, Sir, they have the ability and the finest expertise in
Manitoba to provide for the most complex needs of children in Manitoba‑‑surgical
and medical; secondly, by maintaining pediatric departments in a number of
other hospitals, inpatient is a duplication of resource at a time of
constrained resources, and it makes not only program sense but very good
economic sense to consolidate the Children's Hospital.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the
minister can clarify since there is so much confusion out there, will the
minister advise this House, contrary to what is being said by the head of his
health reform, that outpatient surgery for children will also be consolidated
at the Health Sciences Centre? What is
it? Will outpatient surgery also be
consolidated or not?
Mr.
Orchard: I am quickly thumbing through my book, Mr. Speaker, because if I
can just find‑‑well, I cannot find the direct quote.
My honourable
friend the new critic for Health, and the New Democrats, would do himself well
to make more corrections of false impressions that he has left on the airwaves,
as he did yesterday, to his credit, Sir, where he stepped out of this House and
said, yes, emergency services for children will continue at St. Boniface
Hospital and other services.
He did not say
that when he alarmed the people of
Sir, that would
leave families who wish to access emergency and postoperative care the wrong
impression. It might compromise their
ability to receive emergency care at St. Boniface and other community hospitals
if they believed the words that my honourable friend misinformed the public
with some three weeks ago.
Sir, inpatient
services are consolidated to the Children's Hospital. That means admissions of children to hospital
beds, but outpatient services will continue in most, if not all, of the
locations currently, including St. Boniface, Victoria‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Mr. Chomiak: I have one more
supplementary. Mr. Speaker, I am
thankful the minister finally clarified the distinction that one side of his
department was saying one thing and he is saying the other. He has clarified now what the question
is. I hope he will tell the head of his
health care reform.
My final
supplementary to the same minister, Mr. Speaker, is: Will the minister also clarify, since we are
at this and since his own health reform head will not be able to clarify this
for members of the public, will 15‑ and 16‑year‑olds now be
considered adults or children for purposes of admission for surgery, because we
are told that 15‑ and 16‑year‑olds will now be admitted as
adults because they cannot accommodate all the children at the Health Sciences
Centre?
* (1350)
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, I guess I
have problems with my honourable friend because coincidentally the other day,
when he was having yet another press conference on this issue of service
consolidation‑‑and I note with interest that the Premier‑‑no,
well, a member of the cabinet that made the decision to conceptualize the
Children's Hospital as a centre of excellence is in the gallery today‑‑1975,
yes.
I fully
acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that when New Democrats are in government they
sometimes get things right, but when they are in opposition they seldom
do. I recognize that. I fully recognize that. Let me tell my honourable friend that he
should seek advice from Dr. Aggie Bishop, head of the Children's Hospital, who,
after the press conference he held saying it was going to be a disaster, spoke
to reporters and others outside in the hall saying, look, we can accommodate
inpatient services for children in Manitoba very, very reasonably, effectively,
with quality, with patient care, with love and with the needed care being met,
Sir.
Post‑Secondary Education
Grant and Bursary Assistance
Mr. Reg
Alcock (Osborne): Mr.
Speaker, in the last full academic year that has been reported on, fully 30
percent of the students at the
I would like to
ask the Minister of Education one simple question. Why is she moving to a loans‑only
program and increasing the debt load of the 2,700 students who received some
grant and bursary assistance in this province last year?
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, presently, as the member knows,
the system is
In terms of any
changes which we might then move to within our provincial government, the
member will have to wait until the budget to see what that will be.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, what I want
this minister to do is to give the students of this province an assurance that
they will have the same level of grant and bursary assistance in the coming
year that they have in the current year.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, I speak to
the students of this province. I had
them into my office yesterday as well.
May I say, at that time they were very pleased that this government has
capped tuition fees at 5 percent.
In terms of any
further assurances, Mr. Speaker, they will have to wait until the budget is
brought down in this House.
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, this
government has increased student fees at the universities by over 80 percent
since they came into office, and another 5 percent increase is inconsistent
with the cuts that they are making at the other facilities.
Universities
Capital Assistance
Mr. Reg
Alcock (Osborne): I
would like to know, from the minister, why she has chosen not to provide any
capital assistance to the universities in the coming year.
Hon. Rosemary
Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, in the announcement that I made
last Thursday to the universities, I announced their operating funds. I told them, at that time, that the
announcement regarding capital would occur at the time that the budget comes
down in this House.
I would like to
remind the member that, by and large, university funding is not usually
announced as early as this time and before the budget, but the universities did
ask this year to please note, where possible, their operating grants. That was an important request from them. This government listened to their
request. We were able to oblige in the
operating. The capital will come with
the budget announcement in this House.
Social Assistance
Health Benefits
Mr. Doug
Martindale (Burrows): Mr.
Speaker, last week the Minister of Family Services announced yet another attack
on the poor when he cut health benefits by $3 million. At the same time the Minister of Health (Mr.
Orchard), in the same government, was negotiating a contract with a consultant
in the range of $4 million to $6 million.
Can the
Minister of Family Services explain why this cut was made at all, a cut which
affects low‑income people, those who have the least ability to pay for
their own optical, their own dental, their own medical expenses? Why has he eliminated coverage, especially
for procedures like root canals?
* (1355)
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I indicated last week, when we
discussed this, that we have had a 65 percent increase in the funding for
social allowances over the last three budgets.
As a result of that call on public money, we have had to make some
adjustments to benefits to social allowance recipients, which still leaves them
more than adequate coverage, certainly much better than citizens of this
province receive who are regarded as being the working poor and others.
The delay that
we have put into place is the same delay that civil servants respect when they
come onto the job and that private plans have as well. So in order to preserve a system, we have had
to make some adjustments to it and those adjustments were announced last week.
Retraining Programs
Mr. Doug
Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, has the Minister of Family Services
or his staff studied the issue of improving or making changes to the work
incentive for people on social assistance, and if so, what did those studies
show? Is the government prepared to make
any changes there, especially progressive changes to encourage people to get
off social assistance and get into the workforce?
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, the member raises I think a
critical issue that is facing governments across North America, and I know in
discussions with the member he is aware that the Premier of Ontario was talking
about going to a form of workfare in that province.
We spend
something like $12 million on programs for social allowance recipients and
moving them into the workforce. Part of
the difficulty, of course, is the difficulty of finding jobs for people without
the appropriate skills. This is a
challenge that I think we as government will be looking at in the coming months
and years, and one that all governments are looking at, is how to use those
funds to get people back to work. I can
tell you in discussing this with my colleagues across the country who are
responsible for social allowance programs, this is an area that needs reform
and we are looking very carefully at what other provinces are doing.
Work Incentives
Mr. Doug
Martindale (Burrows): Will the Minister of Family Services give
serious consideration to improving the work incentives since there are many
people who are willing to work? For example, working as enumerators in the
referendum last fall, one individual earned $500, was only allowed to keep
$50. People need a positive
incentive. It could be built into the
system so that people are able to keep a much greater percentage of their
earnings instead of having them taxed back, effectively at the rate of 100
percent. No one in this country pays
taxes at the rate of 100 percent except people on social‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please.
Hon. Harold
Gilleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, certainly the member is aware of
the tremendous number of reforms that we have brought in in the last two years,
very supportive. I think of the change
in the liquid assets test and the head of household changes. There are other reforms that we are looking
at.
Manitoba Public Insurance Corp
No-Fault Auto Insurance
Mr. Leonard
Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the minister responsible
for MPIC. Manitobans continue to be very
angry and concerned about the excessively high Autopac premium increases that
they see under this government. They see
a government that is doing absolutely nothing to keep the cost down. In answer to my question of March 1, Mr.
Speaker, on the outrageous 75 percent increase given to the new chairman of the
board of MPIC, the minister replied that they are looking at, and I am quoting
from Hansard, "some very serious changes in the MPIC program," and he
went on to infer that Autopac 2000 is coming forward.
Mr. Speaker, will
the minister advise, does this mean that this government is now finally
prepared to establish the pure no‑fault system as recommend very strongly
by Judge Kopstein?
Hon. Glen
Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Act): Mr.
Speaker, I was not making any announcements, but I think the member should not
rise from his place and try to ignore the fact that he was part of the
administration that was looking at a 30 percent increase.
Cost Efficiencies
Mr. Leonard
Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, if the minister will not
implement a no‑fault system, can he explain to the people of
Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister charged with
the administration of The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, we have indicated, and I have
indicated very publicly on a number of occasions, that we are looking at all
aspects of the Autopac coverage that is required by law in this province. We are also assuring ourselves, through the
corporation, that the operations are efficient.
We will be doing a number of things within the responsibility of the
corporation. The corporation is actively
pursuing some options today which will, in due course, be presented.
Mr. Evans: It is still regrettable
that Judge Kopstein, who recommended a system that would have reduced Autopac
premiums by 21 percent, is being ignored, Mr. Speaker.
* (1400)
No-Fault Auto Insurance
Mr. Leonard
Evans (Brandon East): My final supplementary to the minister
is: Has this minister received any
representation in the past few months from the Manitoba Bar Association, or any
group representing the legal profession, in opposition to a no‑fault
system, since such a system will reduce litigation costs substantially by tens
of millions of dollars?
Hon. Glen
Cummings (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Public
Insurance Corporation Act): Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I have received
any communication from the Bar Association recently. I certainly received some a number of years
ago. I have also received representation
from the Manitoba Society of Seniors. I
saw representations that they have made regarding their concerns.
Labour Force Adjustment Strategy
Tabling Request
Mr. Kevin
Lamoureux (
The labour
force in the
My question,
Mr. Speaker, is for the minister. I would
ask: When will he table a detailed plan on the labour force adjustment that
will put Manitobans back to work now and prepare them not only for now but also
for the future?
Hon. Darren
Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) has indicated several times in this House, the work that is now
going on with the Canada‑Manitoba agreement, which includes the
Apprenticeship and Training branch of this department, and the co‑ordination
of a host of training programs across this province is now underway, and we are
working towards concluding that agreement.
I would point
out to the member opposite that over the years, through various administrations
in this province, both federal and provincial governments have built a host of
programs often duplicating each other.
Now, over the last while, myself, the Minister of Education and the
cabinet of this province have been working with our federal colleagues to sort
that out and give direction to it. So
that should be moving along shortly.
Mr.
Lamoureux: Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting he points to the Minister of Education. I am aware of a student at
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Question, please.
Labour Force Adjustment Strategy
Department Co-ordination
Mr. Kevin
Lamoureux (
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I would just like to address the innuendo that the honourable member has
raised in this House regarding courses.
There has been no announcement yet.
For
the student and the individual case, I am happy to look at that particular
student's case, but one of the difficulties that
In
terms of working with my colleagues for a labour market strategy in this
province, I would like to say that there are two working groups. In fact, there is a working group that is
working within departments. There is
also a working group that is working among departments and those departments
include the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik).
They also include my colleague the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson), I T and T.
So we have been very inclusive in developing a labour market strategy in
this province.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, then can the minister explain to
me why the registration fee would be accepted and then the course be
cancelled? That is not innuendo. That is, in fact, what has happened.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as my honourable colleague first
stated the case, he stated a proposed change.
So he would have to present to me the specifics of the individual
involved and, of course, I will be more than happy to look at those specifics
should he present them to me.
Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting
Older Worker Adjustment Strategy
Mr. Jerry
Storie (Flin Flon): Mr.
Speaker, while all of northern Manitoba is suffering under the lack of economic
leadership by this government, the community of Snow Lake and‑‑[interjection] The Minister of Health
(Mr. Orchard) knows full well that the Minister of Energy and Mines bungled the
Hydro contract. In the communities of
Mr. Speaker, my
question is to the Minister of Labour.
Can the Minister of Labour explain to the House why, after receiving a
copy of a letter dated October 6 from the employment and personnel
administrator in Flin Flon at Hudson Bay Mining and Smelting, asking the
government to begin to establish a program for older worker adjustment, the
Province of Manitoba as of a week ago had provided no response and no
leadership on an issue that affected as many as 120 older workers in Flin Flon
and Snow Lake?
Hon. Darren
Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would remind the
honourable member for Flin Flon that the Department of Labour through our
Labour Adjustment unit has been working very closely with the community
committee in the town of
I would remind
the member for Flin Flon, the terms of the POWA agreement are fairly
restrictive. Before even a candidate
would be eligible for consideration, they would have to be out of work for at
least a year. So it is not as if there
is an issue today that has not been acted on.
That process is part of the adjustment process in which we have a staff
dedicated and assigned to the
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the minister
did not answer the question. The
question was why has the government not responded.
Can the
minister tell the people of Flin Flon and
Mr. Praznik: If I understand the
member correctly, I believe he is referring to the POWA program, the program
for older worker adjustment, where in essence the federal and provincial
governments buy an annuity for an individual, I believe over 55 years of age,
who is not able to be retrained, but the criteria for that particular agreement
is extremely restricted.
I would say to
the member, before you can ask whether or not a government would support that
application, we are not even sure whether or not there (a) will be any
applicants who will qualify, or whether the community will qualify, but I can
tell him that we have staff assigned who have been working through the Labour
Adjustment Committee in the process, which is the route to go, and that has
been ongoing since the initial announcements from Hudson Bay Mining and
Smelting.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the
minister has not even read the letter.
The chairperson of the
My question is
a simple one: Will the government of
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, because the
president of Hudson Bay‑‑in fact, this must be the first time that
the New Democrats have accepted the word of a president of a mining company
holus‑bolus without judging it against criteria.
Mr. Speaker,
there are criteria by which that program operates. One of them is that those individuals are not
eligible or have not been able to be retrained within a year of being laid off. If they are eligible, we will consider that
application.
I have to say
this to him, that the process is underway. This department has assigned staff
to that process, but if he is asking me for a commitment here today, whether we
do not even know if this layoff will be eligible, that would just be silly.
* (1410)
Crow Benefit
Government Position
Ms. Rosann
Wowchuk (
I want to ask
the Premier to state very clearly his government's position. Does he feel the payment should stay as it
is, or are they supporting the idea that the payment should be changed to the
farmers?
Hon. Gary
Filmon (Premier): Mr.
Speaker, as the member knows, we in the economy of
Of course, we
are going to want to be open‑minded, to look at all opportunities to
increase the value of our production, to increase the revenues to our
individual producers and to ensure that we do not ignore any opportunity for
economic growth in our farm community.
We will always
evaluate the options available to us with that in mind. We will not have a narrow, blinkered view, as
is being expressed by the member for Swan River who says, do not consider any
change; do everything the way it used to be done 50 years ago and condemn our
farmers to poverty. That is what she is
asking us.
I will not do
that, Mr. Speaker. Our farmers deserve
the opportunity for economic growth, for economic prosperity like everyone else
in society does, and we will ensure that as we evaluate our policies, we keep
that first and foremost in our mind.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral
Questions has expired.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: I would like to draw the
attention of honourable members to the loge to my left, where we have with us
this afternoon the honourable Howard Pawley, the former Premier for the
I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon, sir.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Ms. Judy
Wasylycia-eis (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
member for
Ms.
Wasylycia-eis: I
would like to bring to the attention of this House the amazing achievement of a
Winnipeg artist and performer, Ma‑Anne Dionisio who was recently chosen
from among hundreds of talented individuals to play the lead female role in the
$20 million production of Miss Saigon set to open in Toronto in May at the
Princess of Wales Theatre.
This is a
remarkable accomplishment and a matter of great pride for Ma‑Anne's
family, the entire Filipino community and
I, along with
several other members in this Chamber, had the privilege of witnessing Ma‑Anne's
extraordinary voice and amazing talent when she performed at the
I would like to
offer, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of members in this Assembly, our heartfelt
congratulations and best wishes to Ma‑Anne Dionisio and on behalf of
everyone here express our thanks by saying Salamat po.
Mr. Kevin
Lamoureux (
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable
member for
Mr.
Lamoureux: I
want to join in with the member for
In particular,
just over Valentine's Day at the Radio 27 Club, which is another organization
where we see a lot of talent, Mr. Speaker, and a lot of this talent is allowed
to come to the surface because the communities, all of the different ethnic
communities, get behind the individuals and promote and ensure that there is a
platform for them in order to get more and more people involved in listening to
the different arts and the different heritage groups and so forth.
I did want to
congratulate Ma‑Anne on the wonderful job that she has done, and I am
sure that she will do
Committee Changes
Mr. Neil
Gaudry (St. Boniface): I move, seconded by the member for
Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Clayton
Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, will you call Debate on Second Readings, the bills
in the order that is presented on the Order Paper?
DEBATE ON SECOND
Bill 2‑The Endangered Species Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of
the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), Bill 2, The Endangered
Species Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les especes en voie de
disparition, standing in the name of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Is there leave
that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Mr. John
Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.
Speaker, this is the second time that we have seen this issue before the House
since the election of 1990. This
government did not get it right the first time. This is very common in many of
the bills that the government brings forward.
They do not have a very good screening process in place to ensure that
the bills have gone through all of the requirements and that they will not have
to come back before the House and demonstrate their confusion and mismanagement
when it comes to managing bills in this House.
We have seen this many times. The
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) knows that and is rather embarrassed about
it.
I would be,
too, if I was him, because in fact they have been in government five years now
and should have been able, by this time, to put in place a process that ensures
that bills brought before the House are not rushed and brought in in a
haphazard way, an ad hoc way, therefore requiring all kinds of changes later
on, because it does take a lot of the time of this House, as the minister will
probably realize by the time the debate in this House is over on this
bill. It does take a lot of time and
expense for the taxpayers.
Any government
that wants to proclaim itself as efficient and as custodians of the taxpayers'
dollars should, in fact, ensure that their legislation is brought in in a way
that is complete, accurately reflects the intent and has passed all possible
scrutiny so that we will not end up with the problems that we have with many
pieces of legislation by the government.
Having said
that, Mr. Speaker, I realize there are some new circumstances that have
developed since 1990 and that is why the bill, Bill 2 dealing with endangered
species, is before this House as well.
So it is partly the fact that the government did not do it right the
first time. They had the opportunity,
this government, only two years ago‑‑three years ago, in 1990. Also not only did they not do it right, but
there were some other circumstances that developed since that time, regulations
put in place at the national level that require some changes to the provincial
act to conform.
Having said
that, I can see there is some validity then to bringing the act in. My understanding is that there is a committee
on the status of endangered wildlife in
* (1420)
The Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) seems to be particularly interested in this bill,
paying close attention, but he is interrupting me at this time. I wanted to bring to his attention, Mr.
Speaker, that he will have an opportunity to speak on this bill‑‑I
am sure he will want to‑‑at great length at some point in the near
future, because the government does not have any real agenda for this House at
this present time.
What has
happened, Mr. Speaker, is they are hoping that the opposition will be able to
fill the time for them because they do not have their act together. They are afraid to bring in a budget. They are afraid to bring a budget before the
people of
I think it is
time that this government brought forward its agenda for this legislative
session that they said they were going to bring forward, if they want to be
straight with the people, in the throne speech.
I think their agenda is shifting. In fact, we are not even seeing the
list of legislation that was promised in the throne speech coming forward.
So we are
having to deal with these bills at this time.
The government is hopeful that it is this side of the House that is
going to bail them out because they do not have an agenda for the people of
I think the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) should be relevant when he discusses
issues in this House. I have found it
very difficult, Mr. Speaker, now that he brings forward the topic to find out
exactly what he is referring to when he is answering questions or speaking in
this House, because he has a great deal of difficulty being relevant to the
subject.
Now, Mr.
Speaker, I want to provide a brief bit of history to the Minister of Northern
Affairs and other MLAs listening closely on this important issue. This matter of endangered species was one
that has been pioneered at least in Legislatures in this country, a great deal
by the previous New Democratic government.
As a matter of
fact, we had initiated a process to establish such an act, an Endangered
Species Act, way back in the mid‑1980s.
Now we are talking about eight years ago when this process started. It was recognized even before that. We had done a lot of the groundwork. We had all the bills ready to go and, as a
matter of fact, would have been introduced in the House in 1988 prior to the
unforeseen election that took place in the spring of 1988. The government then took another two years
following that to bring forward an Endangered Species Act so they had a couple
of years.
What I said
earlier, Mr. Speaker, is that they did not have an adequate process for
screening legislation to ensure that it was accurate and reflected the
intent. So what we saw is that the bill
that was brought in in 1990 was severely flawed and needed some updates. Now they are telling us that new
circumstances have resulted in a need to in fact change things in this
bill. So if we take them at their word,
there are some changes that are a result of a change in the situation regarding
endangered wildlife, endangered species in this country as a whole, and they
have brought in some changes.
We have some
concerns, I would not say, Mr. Speaker, about the definitions, because the
definitions on endangered species, extinct species and threatened species are
more clear and consistent with the national standards and so that is okay.
However, there are some aspects of this bill dealing with the minister's
powers. Now that is always a frightening
thing when we talk about the minister's powers, because when we have powers
placed in the hands of the irresponsible as we have in many cases here in this
Legislature, in this government, it is pretty scary for people because they
have, in many cases, across the board carte blanche authority to make decisions
that affect in this case not only human beings in this province with regard to
social services and health care and education, but also endangered species of
wildlife.
Now, the
Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) talks about endangered species. I think that he better start looking in the
mirror, because it is going to be a fact that they are going to see a vanishing
species across the road as we approach the next election, and it is becoming
more evident. The real extinct species
is going to be on the other side, so they should try to preserve themselves‑‑I
admit that they are‑‑and take all the steps necessary, perhaps
using this act to preserve themselves. In the final analysis, they will be a
vanishing breed, Mr. Speaker, and they are at the present time.
Let me say that
with regard to the powers of the minister, there is going to be a section
within the bill that will allow the minister to issue a permit that would
permit the killing of an endangered species member. That is of serious concern because they use
the term "scientific purposes" and they say that would be the reason,
but it has been pointed out by my colleagues, and I think very importantly so,
that "scientific purposes" has not been adequately defined.
If you do not
have a definition and a guideline under which the minister must act, then we
are giving the minister, as I indicated earlier, a dangerous expansion of
power. In fact, there could be interest
groups that would want to take these animals for their own purposes, that could
lobby the minister and end up with a permit that would not be truly for
scientific purposes or necessary scientific purposes.
We have not
even talked about the necessity of this and whether there are alternatives. What about the possibility that there are all
kinds of other species that could serve the same purpose for scientific
study? They would not have to actually
go after one of those that are rare and endangered. We would think that the government would
consider that, but there is no definition in this bill that deals with this
issue. That, of course, is very
frightening, as I said earlier.
In fact, we
have seen the misuse of power by this government, by these ministers on many
occasions in the last number of years, and perhaps no more aptly demonstrating,
Mr. Speaker, than in the deep and difficult, the extremely painful cuts
inflicted by the government on children in this province, on the poor, on the
vulnerable, on the people who are ill, on the elderly. Groups that are vulnerable in society tend to
be picked on by this government. In that
way, with that example, you have to wonder whether, if we were to compare those
species that are endangered in animal life, we could look at that comparison and
that parallel between what they do with the most vulnerable in society when it
involves human beings and what do they do in a situation like this.
Do they really
care? Is there any chance that we could
point to examples that would show that this government really cares about the
most vulnerable in society? We have seen
their track record. Why would they care
about animals? Why would they really
care about finding out whether a scientific project of research was really
necessary on that endangered species?
Why would they really care?
They do not
demonstrate they care. They seem to be
more concerned with pursuing their ideological bent and philosophy with regard
to privatization and cuts on essential services than they do with compassion
for those who are most impacted in society, Mr. Speaker.
We saw that
with the kind of flippant responses from the Premier (Mr. Filmon) to the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton) yesterday when he raised a very serious issue about
one of his constituents with regard to mental health services in this
province. We saw the kind of political
attack by the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) who said he was just
grandstanding. That is the kind of response
that would demonstrate to us that this government is not a caring government,
does not concern itself with the plight of those who are the most vulnerable
and are being hurt the most in society and in fact hurts them even worse and
smiles, Mr. Speaker, oblivious to the blood that is being shed around them.
* (1430)
I say, Mr.
Speaker, any time a government of this political stripe, with this callous
attitude towards life, towards people, to those vulnerable in society, we
should be concerned when they bring in an act that gives expansive powers to
the minister, in this case the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), to
make decisions with regard to animal life.
Many times many
people consider animal life as sacred as human life. In fact there are many people who risk their
life, who spend much of their life defending various species of animal life in
our world, not only in our country but across the world. The Greenpeace
organization might be one example. They
give their own lives in some cases. They
give their own lives to preserve and save endangered wildlife.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
So we
consider that human beings value wildlife and species, and of course we see
that it is endangered in so many areas of the world. We are losing species, plant species, wildlife
species at an alarming rate at the present time with the burning of the rain
forests and the destruction of other habitat for wildlife. We are losing hundreds of species perhaps a
day in some of the information that I have seen. It is extremely scary and a tremendous loss
to our world that these species have indeed been wiped off the face of the
earth forever.
So there are
those who draw this to public attention, who spend much of their life defending
those that cannot defend themselves, those that cannot speak for
themselves. Just like we have the
vulnerable in society who cannot speak for themselves in many cases, they ask
the voice of the opposition to bring forward their concerns. We have wildlife, indeed, who cannot speak
for themselves as well. When this
government is callous in their treatment of our environment and our wildlife,
as many like governments across this world are, like‑minded governments
to this government I might say, then there must be someone who will stand up
and speak for them. That is what we
intend to do with this bill, to speak for those who are at risk, be it
wildlife, be it human beings, because both are very valuable to our people, to
our fragile planet, as my colleague the member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett)
says in adding her piece to this bill from her seat.
I am certain
that my colleagues will want to add their contributions on this bill time and
again over the next while to bring forward their deep concerns on the issue of
endangered wildlife and plant species in this world, certainly. I want to just alert the government that we
not only are vigilant when we are dealing with human life and those who are
vulnerable in society and endangered by the actions of this government,
endangered. The parallel is very clear. In fact, Mr. Acting Speaker, we will be
vigilant not only when it endangers the human species, but also when it
endangers the various species of wildlife and plant life in this country, in
this world and in this province in particular.
Mr. Acting Speaker,
I will close my remarks at this time with the one final statement that I can
make to the minister, that he, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns),
when reading these remarks, undoubtedly in great detail, at some time in the
future, will carefully consider whether in fact he should define scientific
purposes in this act, so that there will be some legislative guidelines for
decision making by the minister, not wide open.
Although the
minister and his colleagues may feel comfortable for another year or a year and
a half, they are‑‑and they have to realize‑‑temporary
custodians of the decision making of government in the
They should
ensure that they like this legislation not only when they are in government,
but they find it acceptable when they are in opposition too. If they used that as a guideline for any of
the legislation they bring forward, to consider whether it is acceptable to
them if they were sitting in opposition as it is when they are sitting in
government, if they use that measuring stick, then in fact they will definitely
be more representative of people's wishes than they are at the present time,
because they certainly are not using that.
They are not
using that, Mr. Acting Speaker. They
have to remember, it could be in the hands of the opposition in government only
a year and a half or two years hence.
Would they like those powers in the hands of the opposition when in
government? That is the yardstick I said
they should use. I hope that they will
endeavour to consider those things when they make decisions of this
nature. Because they are not going to be
there, as I said, for a very long time, and they will have to consider the
implications of that to their future as well.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, I am going to just indicate that we will want to hear what the
government has to say in support of what they are proposing here. We will want to hear whether they have some
way of dealing with the concerns that we have raised that are satisfactory to
us. My colleagues will undoubtedly want
to raise a number of other issues related to this bill at the very earliest
opportunity. As a matter of fact, I
understand that they will need some of those papers very soon. Thank you.
Committee Change
Mr. Edward
Helwer (Gimli): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to make some changes to the Public Accounts Committee.
The Acting
Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Would the honourable member for Gimli have
leave to make changes to one of the committees? Leave. [agreed]
Mr. Helwer: I move, seconded by the
member for Assiniboia (Mrs. McIntosh), that the composition of the Standing
Committee on Public Accounts be amended as follows: The member for
* * *
The Acting
Speaker (Mr. Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? The question before the House is second
reading‑‑[interjection]
Oh, it is standing in the name of the honourable member‑‑that is
correct. I am sorry.
As previously
agreed, this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member
for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
Ms. Jean
Friesen (Wolseley): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I assume that there is still permission to remain standing in
the name of the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). Okay.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, I am glad to rise on The Endangered Species Amendment Act, which is an
act of three or four pages which intends primarily to offer some wording
changes, some definition changes to The Endangered Species Act.
Its purpose in
altering some of these definitions is to bring them in line with both national
and international wordings and definitions, and I think, Mr. Acting Speaker,
that is generally a good move, one where in fact we perhaps ought to be looking
at other acts in much the same way. In
the New Democratic Party and on this side of the House, of course, we have
always fought for national standards in so many areas of government.
* (1440)
Definitions,
scientific regulations and connections across provincial boundaries I think
have always been important, and one of the things in fact that I thought was
one of the better aspects of the constitutional proposals of Manitoba was that
it argued for a stronger voice at the national level for the environment as
well as for post‑secondary education, and that was an all‑party
report, Mr. Acting Speaker. It did not
in the end, I believe, form part of this government's proposals at the
constitutional table, but I do believe that it was something which was approved
of by most Manitobans in the hearings that we heard from last year and the year
before. So the move towards national
standards even in such a small area as this is one that in principle I approve
of and would offer some support for.
I would hope
that the government would at some point go back to that all‑party
committee on the Constitution to look at the submissions which were made by
people who were looking for national standards and national approaches to the
difficulties that Canada is facing in the environment and in post‑secondary
education, and perhaps take to heart and try and make some changes on and in
the national forum in both of those areas, both of which cry out for a national
approach to the problems that all provinces are facing, and problems which do
not stop at provincial boundaries.
The second thing
I think that is interesting about this act, Mr. Acting Speaker, is that it is
an act, perhaps, much like The Heritage Resources Act where government is
acting to regulate and to protect a national or a provincial inheritance, a
public, a common inheritance for the people of
I am often
surprised when this particular government does make that approach, because this
is a government which is adverse to regulation and to protection. It is a government which I believe has a real
agenda in fact to retreat from governance, to retreat from the protection of
the rights and the community supports and of the programs that we held in
common, a party and a government which is aiming in almost everything that it
brings to this House to reduce the role of government, to reduce regulation, to
reduce any kind of constraint upon international markets, multinational
corporations.
Mr. Acting
Speaker, when government is weak, it is the people and the poorest people who
suffer, and that, I believe, is the real agenda of this government in almost
every area which they touch. So it is
with some surprise that I do see that they are, in fact, dealing with, or
making as part of their agenda, an act which does attempt to regulate in a
very, very small way some elements of the provincial or common
inheritance. The protection of
endangered species is something that cannot be done by individuals. It is something that cannot be done by
individual communities or by sections of the province or indeed classes or
volunteers so much beloved of this government, but it is something which must
be done by all the people together.
So it is with
some surprise that I welcome the interest of this government in some forms of
regulation and in some forms of common inheritance. There are times when I look at the actions of
this government in dealing with education, in dealing with the health care
system, in dealing with family services, when one wonders if there will be
anything left for the next generation of Manitobans. Will there be any common inheritance
left? There may, in fact, if we look at
this, be perhaps some endangered species left in
This particular
act, as I said, reminds me very much of The Heritage Resources Act, which the
NDP government put in place, but there are, of course, some differences. The Heritage Resources Act aims to protect
and regulate special places and buildings of historical significance. It is an act which provides for surveys, for
evaluation, for designation, for public hearings and for appeals. It is quite a complex act, Mr. Acting
Speaker. At the time when it was instituted
under Eugene Kostyra, it was the most progressive piece of legislation in
heritage conservation in the country.
Since then, there have been others which have improved upon it, as is
the case in our federal system and, to some extent, in
The provision
for the designation of municipal buildings and municipal special places, I
think, has resulted in wide recognition and a great deal of community activity,
particularly in parts of southern
One of the
difficulties in this bill is, in fact, that it provides for a listing of
endangered species and for really a process of watching decline. It does not provide for enforcement; it does
not provide for fines; it does not provide, perhaps more importantly, for the
very first basis of any kind of wildlife management program or heritage
management program or management program of any kind of conservation resources,
and that is, first of all, an inventory of the existing species, their habitat,
their condition, their numbers, and develops longitudinal studies of those
particular species and animals.
That, I think
we will find when we get to the public hearings, will be one of the
difficulties that environmental groups and people concerned with heritage and
conservation generally will address. I
guess we all are grateful for the advantages we have in Manitoba having all
bills go to public hearing so that we do have the opportunity to address issues
such as this on which we might all be able to agree, in which there might be a
consensus and where it might be possible for the minister at that stage to
address the issue in conjunction with the community and with the opposition and
to find some way of addressing the public concerns that are out there. Those public hearings are always well
attended and, I think in some cases, not in all but, in some cases, there has
been very productive use and there has been the opportunity to develop a
consensus in a number of areas and to provide amendments that do address the
issues that the public brings before us.
In this case,
Mr. Acting Speaker, I think that there might well be presentations which do
point out to the minister the difficulties that Manitobans have in looking at
endangered species when we have so little information upon their recent history
and we have so little information that would give us essentially an inventory
of which animals and which species are in greater or lesser need of protection
and which ones in fact are present and in what numbers and how their numbers
have been changing perhaps over the last five to 10 years, the very basic kind
of inventory that any small businessman, as the government I am sure will well
recognize, any management of any resource, whether it is a human resource or
whether it is, in this case, a species of wild animals. You have to know how many there are; you have
to know what rate they have been changing at and where they are and how those
habitats have been changing.
One of the
difficulties in
I think a second
issue that is important to all of us on this side of the House is the capacity
of this particular department to indeed take on very basic management processes
such as an inventory of these species.
This is a government which a number of years ago fired over 200
people. This is a department which, I am
sure, will suffer greater losses again.
It is a department which is going to a four‑day week. How can you have a department of Natural
Resources which is charged with, which is mandated to protect endangered
species and to give a wide variety of services to the people of Manitoba who
are being consistently undercut, undermined, underfunded by this particular
government? It is not simply a response
to the issue of financial resources in the government, because I do
fundamentally believe that this government, without a financial crisis, would
have taken steps and moves to reduce government, to retreat from governance, to
retreat from the role of a community in defending and preserving its resources
and its inheritance.
* (1450)
It is a clear
ideological divide, one I think which we are seeing now put in place very
consistently when the government believes that it will have public support for
its particular ideological bent under the guise of a financial crisis, but we
should not be mislead or fooled by this.
There are a good proportion of the cabinet, a good proportion of the
members of that side of the House who clearly see that limits to government
powers are ones which will act in the interest of those who are powerful and
wealthy and who have influence in our community.
It is a clear
ideological divide, which I believe the people of
I think the
real trickle‑down legacy of this government in fact will be that
recognition that there is a clear ideological divide between the peoples of
Manitoba and in fact the government, which is choosing to reduce and to retreat
from its rightful role as the voice of the community and as the protector and
conserver of our resources and our programs.
There are
concerns about a number of endangered species in
As far as I
understand it, these changes and these limitations placed on logging in order
to protect the woodland caribou have come at the request, at the pressure of
conservation groups and of the environmental movement. They have not, as I understand it, although I
stand to be corrected on this, come at the insistence of this no‑regulation
government.
Public interest
groups out there are indeed concerned about this and, certainly in the case of
the woodland caribou, have acted to force the government to act, but it is a
government department which has fewer and fewer employees and, of course, does
find it more and more difficult to be ahead of the process, to be there
monitoring the state of the woodland caribou or of the brown trout, for
example, in the Nelson River system, another species which people have
suggested is also in danger.
So I would
suggest, first of all, a reconsideration of the role of the Department of
Natural Resources of the staffing levels to look at whether in fact they are
able to manage the consequences of acts such as this. I would suggest to the government that they
consider an inventory, that they have the basic management tools at their
fingers so they can indeed reasonably enforce this act.
I would suggest
also that they do consider having some provisions in this particular bill for
enforcement. There is very little in
here that gives one any hope that there will be serious enforcement, partly
because of the staffing levels of the department, but also partly because of
the nature of the bill itself. That
would be something I think we might want to consider in committee as well.
One area that
has also been brought to our attention is the issue of permits in this
bill. The permits by the minister, which
are mentioned in one particular section towards the end of the bill, where the
minister is now permitted to authorize a person to kill, take, collect or
capture an endangered species. That, I think, will bear some further
investigation at committee.
An Honourable
Member: Trust us.
Ms. Friesen: The minister says, trust
us. Well, the minister will forgive me
if a slight smile appears on my lips.
An Honourable
Member: You
like that, eh?
Ms. Friesen: Yes, just a little.
There are
comparable provisions in The Heritage Resources Act, and I wanted to draw those
to the attention of the minister because The Heritage Resources Act, I think,
has elements which could be useful here.
The minister here is allowed to give permits for the killing of animals,
and I assume that the origin of this is animals perhaps who might be badly
wounded and who, under the actual specific wording of the previous legislation,
could not be killed. So it may be for
the provision of‑‑the point that I wanted to make about the permits
is that it may indeed be seen to be correcting some of the limitations of the
earlier wording, but there are some problems with it, and I hope that we will
be addressing these in committee.
In The Heritage
Resources Act, for example, the minister is allowed to provide permits for archaeological
investigations; some, in fact, are given regularly. But there is the provision for an advisory
committee to the minister, the Heritage board which does look at, over a period
of time, not every permit, but once a year at the nature of the permits which
have been given. It may be possible that within the Department of Natural
Resources or within one of the existing boards of government that some review
could be provided for in that area. That
might be something that we could look at‑‑that sense of public
reassurance that this is not being done in an unnecessary or a cruel manner and
one where it is being done, in fact, in sympathy with the spirit of the
legislation.
So there are
some concerns there, Mr. Acting Speaker, and I hope that we will be looking at
them in more detail later on.
There have been
others. Fish, for example, perhaps is
one of the most notable ones which has suffered serious declines throughout
* (1500)
For the most
part fish was lost, not just by the hand of man alone, but in a sense by the
unregulated market economy. Much of the
fish of Lake of the Woods, much of the very large fish, the sturgeon of Lake of
the Woods, was lost in a very short period of time, between about 1880 and
about 1890, a 10‑year period, when American fishing companies moved into
this area, established themselves largely with Metis labour along the shores of
Lake Manitoba and in the Lake of the Woods area and, in a sense, mined that
resource. Out of Selkirk, for example,
they took the railway and they transshipped the fish down to
To a large
extent the fish resources of
The loss of the
buffalo is a more complex issue. It is
an interesting one perhaps. We tend to
think that it was only at the hands of the European hunter that the buffalo
declined, but the more recent research suggests that it was a great variety of
complex mechanisms, one of which was the opening in the 1830s of an immediately
available market in
The expansion
of the buffalo hunt amongst all groups in
It was not
without the appeals of the people at the time. The Council of Assiniboia in the
1850s did consider in fact regulating this particular resource and did look
upon it as an endangered species.
Certainly there were other times the Northwest Council of the 1870s also
examined the case of the buffalo and its loss as an endangered species. When the Cree of western
So this is not
the first time that
We have a
government which prefers not to regulate, which prefers not to monitor or to
inventory, which prefers not to have a bill which provides for penalties in
this area but which offers a small movement towards national standards at least
in vocabulary and which is trying to perhaps offer some public relations effort
to people who are concerned about the environment. I do look forward to the committee hearings,
where we will have an opportunity for questions and perhaps to find some
consensus where we can ameliorate some of the elements of this bill and to
perhaps find some openings of opportunity in the area that it offers to us.
Thank you.
Mr. Doug
Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak
on this bill, because I think endangered species are very important and it also
gives me the opportunity to start off with some theological reflections, which
is something that I like to do with every bill, but it is not always easy to do
that. In this case I believe it is. I think that a good place to start is with
our theology of life on this Earth and how we view it and how we as human beings
are responsible for preserving life and protecting life. The best word for that is stewardship. We are stewards of our environment. We have the opportunity to be good stewards
or bad stewards of our environment, and much of this thought and language comes
from the book of Genesis, where God gave humankind dominion over the earth and
all living things, and this passage has been interpreted in different
ways. For example, there have been two
primary interpretations of this passage.
One is that
humans can do anything, because humans are superior and have a God‑given
mandate to do anything they want. Historically that interpretation held sway
for many, many centuries, and some people still hold to that interpretation.
There is another and I believe more enlightened interpretation, one that has
much better scientific support, and that is that to have dominion implies being
responsible and being good stewards of our environment. I believe that biblical interpretation and
ethics support this second interpretation.
So, in our
society, we have not only competing theological concepts, if you want to look
at it from the biblical point of view, but you could say‑‑[interjection] The member for Arthur‑Virden
(Mr. Downey) wants to know if I use the same script on weekends, and the answer
is yes. I would say exactly the same
thing in the pulpit that I am saying now in my speech. If the member would like to come and listen
to me in the pulpit I would invite him to do that too.
So another way
of looking at this is that these are two competing philosophies, or these are
two competing world views. One view is that as human beings we can use up the
world's resources, that we do not have any responsibility for how fast we use
up the world's resources or in what manner we use them because, as human
beings, that is our right, that is our privilege. It is up to us to make all those decisions.
The other world
view is that we should be good stewards, we should be very concerned, we should
be very careful of how we use the world's resources and to what extent we
protect them. We have an Endangered
Species Act in
The act in the
Preamble recognizes that plant and animal species are of ecological,
educational, aesthetic, historical, medical, recreational and scientific value
to Manitobans and the residents of Manitoba and, due to the activities of
persons untempered by adequate concern for the preservation of native plant and
animal species or other factors, plant and animal species in Manitoba from time
to time become extinct or so depleted that they are threatened with extinction.
* (1510)
Well, that is
good enough as far as it goes. I can
agree with that. I can even agree with
the purpose of the act, which is to ensure the protection and to enhance the
survival of endangered and threatened species in the province; second, to
enable the reintroduction of extinct species into the province; and third, to
designate species that are endangered or threatened with extinction in the
province.
So the purpose
of the act is a good one. However, we
have serious problems with the fact that the act does not go nearly far
enough. For example, if one looks at
fines in
Well, I seem to
hear the member opposite asking me if I like the American way. This may surprise her, but I am going to talk
a lot about the American endangered species protection act, because it is much
better legislation than exists in the
Now I would
like to direct my attention to Bill 2, The Endangered Species Amendment
Act. The main problem we have with this
is that it does not go far enough. It only
lists the endangered species and the requirements to catalogue various stages
of extinction. In fact, I came across a
wonderful quote. I am sorry I do not have the person who said this, but someone
said: We will be the only species to
minutely monitor our own extinction.
I think what
that means is that after we monitor the extinction of all other species,
humankind will be the only ones who are left.
In our society,
we have actually gained quite a bit of expertise and knowledge in monitoring
certain things. For example, we are
wonderful at monitoring air and water pollution, or air quality and water
quality. However, in Bill 2, we are
going to increase monitoring the extinction of species, but we are not going to
do anything more about protection of species, and that is a shame.
In the American
legislation all agencies, fish and wildlife service and other agencies are
required to enforce the endangered species act.
In
As a result of
budget cuts by this government, they are eliminating and dismantling the
infrastructure in the Department of Natural Resources. They are slashing the budget in Natural
Resources. They are slashing the staff
in Natural Resources. The staffperson who was responsible for ecological
reserves is gone. So not only are we not
protecting the habitat and protecting species, but we are going in the opposite
direction. We are providing fewer and fewer resources so that this might happen
in the present or the future.
I learned today
that there was an endangered species scratch‑and‑win ticket, which
suggested that the government was concerned for endangered species. It suggested that the money that was raised
this way might be used to protect endangered species. However, when the staff of the Wildlife
Branch wanted to get some of this money to protect endangered species, they
were not allowed to access it, which suggests to me that the endangered species
scratch‑and‑win was another public relations exercise.
The Department
of Natural Resources used to have a library. They used to have an excellent
librarian. What happened? It is gone.
What did they do with the information?
They dumped it on the Parks Branch, but gave them no resources for the
public to make use of it.
What we have on
the one hand is the government's professed allegiance to preserving and
protecting the environment and on the other hand budgetary decisions which are
going in the opposite direction and providing fewer and fewer resources toward
protecting the environment and endangered species.
What does Bill
2 do? Well, it lists various stages that
species go through. The list in this
bill is endangered species, threatened species, extinct species and extirpated
species. Well, I think that they have the last two out of order, probably should
have been extirpated species and then extinct species, because what extirpated
means is that the geographical limit of a species is limited. They are only found in a particular area, and
the next step after that is they are gone, that they are extinct. So it would actually be more logical to say
extirpated and then extinct.
But what does
this bill do? What is the intent of
it? Bill 2 only catalogues the decline
of species, nothing more. There is no
compulsion for action. There is nothing
to prevent the situation from getting worse other than keeping a list.
I actually have
a friend who works for the Department of Natural Resources or Ministry of
Environment in the Province of Ontario, and before he was hired on by
government, he had many interesting jobs working at the Royal Ontario Museum in
Toronto and at other places, and one of the things that he does is that he
catalogues species, particularly plants.
He is considered an expert in some varieties of plants, particularly in
the
He has also
travelled across western
So I have had
some interesting discussions with my friend John about how we protect
endangered species, plants and other things.
This kind of challenged my thinking, because one of the things that he
said was it is not always the right thing to do to have government set aside a
parcel of land in order to protect a species, because what that does is it lets
everyone know that a particular species of plant or animal or whatever is in a
particular geographical area.
The example
that he gave me was an endangered species of plant somewhere in the
One example of
how this government is, I believe, not protecting the environment and not
protecting endangered species is to look at the level of fines. If the minister responsible for Hydro would
like to look at the level of fines collected in
* (1520)
In
Well, it does
not mean that it has to be done overnight.
It does not mean that you have to spend millions of dollars to do it in
the next year. It could be done in
stages. You could work your way through
the province in stages, either going from one rural municipality to another or
going through biological areas, through one ecosystem after another, or you
could require that Crown corporations and companies conduct an inventory of
species when they apply for an environmental licence. For example, Manitoba Hydro could be required
to do an inventory of species when they apply for a licence.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Unfortunately,
this government has found a creative but unfair way of doing this now, and that
is, with Ducks Unlimited, they did their own inventory of species. They did their own assessment, and then it
was used by the government to justify the project, hardly an objective way of
doing anything, to have the group that is applying for the permit do their own
assessment. Even if they are experts in particular areas, it does not appear to
be a just or fair way to do it.
In
Presently,
there is no monitoring. There is no
money in the department's budget to monitor the woodland caribou and the
effects of logging on this species. I
suggest it is because the government does not want to know what the effect of
logging is on woodland caribou because then there might be some threat to the
logging industry.
The other
example for
By contrast,
the American legislation is much better and much stronger than Canadian, at
least provincial
One of the
famous examples that has come to media attention is the spotted owl in
There is very
interesting discussion in the environmental community, also in Congressional
Quarterly, and I have a periodical called Energy Environment‑‑no, I
have the Congressional Quarterly Almanac for 1991, and I have the Congressional
Quarterly Almanac for 1978, excellent publications which my colleague should be
using in preparation for speeches, if you want to compare American legislation
with Canadian legislation.
For example, in
the 1978 Congressional Quarterly, the Endangered Species Act was amended, and
some of these amendments strengthened the act and made it a better act. It required public hearings by the interior
department for designation of endangered species' critical habitats. The hearing had to occur in the same area
where the proposed site designation was located. The amendments restricted the authority to
apply for an exemption to governors, the federal agency concerned and the
holder of a federal permit or licence to build and operate a project. The amendment allowed any person to appeal
the review board's decision in court.
These all sound
like reasonable and positive improvements to the act, kind of the opposite of
the way this Conservative government went in
Some of you may
remember some of the controversy about this legislation in the
You can see
that the developers found themselves to be in conflict with the
environmentalists, or the developers were in conflict with environmental
legislation, in this case the endangered species legislation.
In addition to
placing a species under the federal mantle, maximum penalties for harming or
capturing a protected creature was a year in jail and a $20,000 fine, double
the fines in the
The debate in
the House was quite interesting. For
example, a Democrat from Iowa, John Culver said‑‑John Culver led
what was often an emotional floor debate‑‑quote: "It does on the surface seem stupid to
save something like a snail darter, some crazy bat, some crayfish, something
called a Furbish lousewort," he told the Senate, referring to other
species that threatened the future of certain projects.
But he
continued, and I quote again: "It
is also true, in my judgment, that we have the ethical and moral responsibility
to pass on to future generations, in as pristine a state as possible, what we
in turn have inherited."
Then he goes on
to point out how we are losing species and how this is going on at an accelerated
pace over the history of human evolution on this earth. He says that during prehistoric times only
one species was extinguished every 10,000 years. Around the year 1600, the rate
increased to one every 1,000 years, until "today, from one to 20 species
are extinguished from our global environment every single year."
"The cause
of our accelerated pace of natural extinction is man," Culver said.
So we see what
happens. We start off with a very slow
extinction of species. It picks up speed
as development increases and becomes faster and faster until one to 20 species
are extinguished from our global environment every single year.
This was a
speech made in 1979, so I would suggest that it has probably increased since
then.
* (1530)
There have been
positive changes since then in our society's thinking about the
environment. We now have the concept of
sustainable development, a concept which has been greatly abused and is
interpreted in various ways. Hopefully,
if we interpret sustainable development in a positive way, it means that we do
not endanger species and that we only go forward with development where it does
not harm the environment.
Unfortunately,
One amendment
proposed by Nelson, which was also adopted, required preparation of an
environmental impact statement on the threatened species, or its critical
habitat, before the board could grant an exception. An environmental impact statement is something
that I think would be helpful in
If we look at
the Congressional Quarterly from 1991, we see what happened in the most recent
review. The lawmakers introduced and
held hearings on bills to stem the decline of the northern spotted owl in the
Pacific Northwest, restore several endangered species of salmon and steelhead
trout that ran the
Now the result
of this discussion is that it brought to the fore the conflict between the
logging industry and environmentalists; that is, it brought to the foreground
the conflict between those who wanted to continue in the logging industry and
those who wanted to protect the environment.
So that was a very interesting debate.
"A
particularly bruising battle was waged over the spotted owl. The controversy produced a hodgepodge of
bills that attempted to deal with it.
"They
ranged from timber‑industry‑supported proposals to make end runs
around the Endangered Species Act and judicial review of timber policy, to
environmentalist‑supported measures that would give ironclad protection
to whole swaths of the owl's ancient forest habitat." It is interesting to follow that debate and
to see what happened.
One of the
things that was introduced, which is a good idea, which I think should be
adopted elsewhere, is: "Bills were
introduced in both chambers to require the government to consider entire
ecosystems in managing public lands."
In fact, that is something that we should probably include in
To continue
from the Congressional Quarterly:
"Biodiversity was much talked about during battles to save the
habitats of the northern spotted owl and red squirrel. Supporters of habitat preservation argued
that subspecies, such as the two in question, were a distinctive and important
part of their ecosystems . . . .
"Most
scientists estimated that there were between 10 million and 1 billion species
of plants and animals on the Earth and only a fraction of them had been
identified.
"Many in
the scientific community worried that the loss of biodiversity would deprive
mankind of potential medical and agricultural breakthroughs."
Is this
relevant in
An amendment
was introduced similar to the biodiversity bill: "to amend the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1970 to require that the impact on biological diversity be
considered in the preparation of environmental impact statements." Another good idea.
"During
the House consideration of the Bureau of Land Management reauthorization bill,
fierce debate centered on an addition to the bill to compel the bureau to
manage its lands with 'biological diversity' in mind.
"Opponents
did not try to strike the provision. In
fact, an amendment offered by Jontz strengthened the biodiversity provisions of
the bill by ordering that the BLM restore its land to its 'natural productive
capability.'"
This is
something that is not happening in
In the Senate,
hearings were held on biodiversity legislation.
"Scientist
and author Stephen Jay Gould testified at the Environment and Public Works
Subcommittee on Environmental Protection hearing on July 26. He offered an aesthetic justification for
efforts aimed at preserving biologically diverse habitats." This is an interesting quote: "What a bleak world it shall be if none
but the hardy city dwellers remain, and we come to share our planet only with
pigeons, rats, cockroaches and flies."
Certainly it would be a bleak environment if we shared it only with
pigeons, rats, cockroaches and flies. If
we do not do something about protecting not only endangered species, but
protecting the environment or the habitat in which they live, that is whom we
will be sharing the environment with.
So, Mr.
Speaker, in summary, I believe that this bill is very inadequate. All it does is it requires that endangered
species be listed. What it does, in
effect, is it monitors various species as they go through the categories from
endangered to threatened to extirpated to extinct and then they are gone. Then it is too late to bring them back. So what we need is much stronger legislation
that protects their habitat and keeps these species and does not just monitor
them as they go out of existence.
I believe that
we could look to the American legislation that I have quoted from extensively,
the fish or wildlife endangered species protection act of the American
Congress, and we can learn from their experience since their legislation has
been in place since 1969. I do not think
that we should copy what they have done holus‑bolus. I think we could learn from their experience
and adapt and adopt what is appropriate for our context in
Certainly,
other jurisdictions are doing things that are much more progressive than this
government in
We believe that
they should. We believe there are many
things that they can be doing and many things that they should be doing. They could do some of that by putting some
teeth in the enforcement, by requiring certain things, and they could do it
through The Endangered Species Act and through their environmental legislation.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed,
this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Flin
Flon (Mr. Storie).
* (1540)
Bill 3‑The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Downey), Bill 3, The Oil and Gas and Consequential Amendments Act;
Loi concernant le petrole et le gaz naturel et apportant des modifications
correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave that this
matter remain standing? [agreed]
Ms. Becky
Barrett (
According to
the press release that was issued by the minister in late December of last year
when he announced this act, this bill is going to result in a consolidation of
petroleum exploration, development, storage and transportation legislation
under a single statute. Mr. Speaker, we
on this side of the House have always been supportive of the concept of consolidation,
of making legislation clearer, easier to understand and putting a number of
acts into one consolidated statute so that it is more readily accessible to the
public. Of course, given that we will
not know all the ramifications of this piece of legislation until we hear the
government's discussion on second reading on this matter and also the public
hearings‑‑given those caveats, we do, as I have stated, agree with
clarification of legislation wherever possible.
Also, Mr.
Speaker, according to the government, another one of the bases of this
legislation is to modernize or to bring up to date some of the outdated
elements of some of those five pieces of legislation. Again, we are in favour of updating and making
legislation more relevant to the times in which we live. So in that regard we
have no concerns with the concept of consolidation and updating and
modernizing.
However, Mr.
Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not put some concerns on the record as to
this piece of legislation as we read it now.
Again, I would certainly hope that the government members will clarify
for us in the House, during second reading, the elements of this legislation
and will do their best to respond before we get to public hearings on our
concerns that we have raised in the House.
The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes) in particular have put some concerns on record. I would like to reiterate some of those
concerns and perhaps expand on one or two of them from my perspective.
One of the
major concerns that I have with this piece of legislation is the composition of
the proposed board. Boards and
commissions of provincial governments in our parliamentary system play an
incredibly important role. There are
literally hundreds of boards in our system in our province that advise, work
with and reflect, in many cases, the issues of the community, that advise the
government of the day on issues of concern in their area and, in many cases,
reflect the thinking of the government of the day.
We have
examples of boards in this province that are made up solely of professional
people whose role is to, in a very technical manner, advise the government on
issues that relate to their jurisdiction.
We also have boards that are made up of a mix of individuals who have a
certain expertise, as well as representatives of the general public who advise
the government, who deal with various elements of the running of the
government.
I think, Mr. Speaker,
generally speaking, this is an excellent way of functioning as a
government. It is important for a
government which can potentially run the risk of isolating itself from the
wishes and desires and concerns of the general public that there are boards and
commissions in place that are allowed and do reflect those issues and concerns
that reflect the makeup of the community and that can provide good, solid
advice to the government of the day.
There appears,
Mr. Speaker‑‑and again this is something that we would like to have
clarified by the government and also will look for advice and help and
assistance when we get to the public hearing process‑‑to be a shift
away from power and influence from the appointed board to the minister which is
an interesting shift in the light of this government's general way of doing
business which is to try and make government less intrusive or less active in
the workings of the government.
The government
has tried to, and in many cases has succeeded, in offloading their
responsibilities, as we would see it, onto lower levels of government, onto
communities, onto individuals and families.
We, on this side of the House, have spoken at great length about the
impacts that this implementation of the Conservative ideology of less
government is automatically better government on the people of
I find it
interesting, Mr. Speaker, in this context, that the proposed makeup of the Oil
and Natural Gas Conservation Board would appear on the surface to fly in the
face of that tendency or a move that the provincial government has been
undertaking in the last four years because this board, the way it will be
comprised, will have, it appears to us, less influence, less authority than the
current board does and far more power will reside with the minister.
I would like to
spend some time discussing this issue because I think that it is a very
important concept and a very important part of this piece of legislation
because, frankly, if this board is not going to have much power or if the
composition of this board is not going to fully reflect the community's best
interests‑‑and I will discuss that concern as well‑‑then
we have some major concerns with this part of the legislation.
Currently the
Oil and Natural Gas Conservation Board is limited to five members. There is no specific qualification for
appointment to this board which means that the minister is free to make
appointments that reflect a very broad base of community involvement and allows
the minister to, if the minister is, in our context, using this board to its
best benefit, will appoint members who reflect not only the geographical
elements that need to be represented when you are discussing oil and natural
gas in this province, but also allows the minister a great deal of flexibility
in those appointments.
Currently this
five‑member board has the power to make inquiries. Now, this is a very important power that this
board has, whether it chooses to use it or not and with regularity is an
entirely different issue, but because this board has the power to make
inquiries, it has some independence from the government of the day. It has some ability to bring to the
government of the day concerns that the community at large may have with the
many issues surrounding oil and natural gas and its conservation and use in
this province which is not an unimportant and small issue.
So the current
board does have a great deal of authority. Again, another component of this
current board is that the decisions of this board are final, so, again, there
is an enormous amount of potential power and authority and influence on the
members of the current board as it is under the current piece of legislation.
Under the
proposed board membership, there must be at least three members, so there is a
minimum number, but there is no maximum number.
I will share some concerns that we have on that element.
Two members of
this board must have specialized knowledge in the field of oil and natural
gas. Now, frankly, I personally feel
that this is not a bad addition to the composition of the board, because it
does allow for a certain amount of expertise that comes from outside the
government to be reflected in this board.
* (1550)
Only one member
of this board may be a government employee. Again, that is an important
specification to the board composition because the board will advise the
minister and needs to have some linkage with the government of the day, so we
have no concerns about the fact that there needs to be a representative of the
government. However, we do have, and
finally, generally speaking, in the proposed board, the minister refers matters
to the board for consideration, so a great deal of the independence of the
current board will be eliminated in this new board.
The concerns that
we have on the composition of the board deal both with the minimum number and
the lack of a maximum number of members on this board. The problem with the minimum number, as the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) pointed out in his remarks yesterday, is that
if you have only three members of the board and one is a member of the
government to provide that linkage and continuity with the government and two
members must have expertise, you could potentially have a situation where this
board, legally represented, legally constituted with three members, has a
government employee who by definition does not have a great deal of autonomy or
independence and two members of technical expertise who very likely would be
members of the oil and gas industry.
I would certainly
be remiss if I left it on the record the suggestion that any individual member
of the community would not be an honourable member of a board, but I think it
is fairly safe to assume that if you only have three members of a board and the
only two members are representing special interest groups, are representing one
part of the entire complex of issues that are found in the oil and gas industry
in the province of Manitoba, you could potentially run into some major
problems.
I think that it
is highly unlikely that this government would appoint two representatives of
environmental groups to sit on the Oil and Natural Gas Board. It is highly unlikely that they would appoint
two members who had interests concerning either the oil industry or the natural
gas industry, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility, as we have seen by
other appointments by this government and other actions of this government,
that those two positions might definitely not be industry representatives.
The concern we
have with that is that it allows for only a very narrow focus to be dealt with
and discussed by this board. It does not allow for a range of issues to be
discussed. It does not allow for a range
of concerns to be addressed by the board and recommendations to be given to the
minister.
The maximum
number of members of this board is not listed in the proposed changes to the
oil and natural gas act. This
potentially has a problem as well. If
you do not have a maximum number of individuals, there is the possibility, and
I am not for a moment suggesting that it would actually come to pass, that a
government could appoint 15, 20, 25, 30 people to this board. That could
potentially lead to a perception, if not a reality, of using the government's
ability to appoint people as being seen as pork barrelling or paying back or
paying off or giving a perk to supporters of the government in one form or
another.
A federal
comparison springs to mind with the ability of the federal government to
appoint senators and the potential for misuse of that power that we have seen,
in particular with the current Conservative government's unconscionable
stacking of the Senate in order to pass the goods and services tax.
Again, Mr.
Speaker, I am not suggesting that this government would in fact use their power
to appoint cronies or people with a particular interest at all, but legislation
must take into account the extremes of potential activity that could be
undertaken. I am responding to the
potential errors that a government could fall into in appointing a very small
board as well as the errors that could happen if you appoint a very large
board. We would like to see there being
perhaps a larger minimum number and very definitely a maximum number.
A question I
would have of the government, and I do not know what the current situation is,
but I would wonder as well of the cost of this board, if there currently is a
remuneration for the members of this board and, if so, what it is. Will the regulations, which are, I
understand, being worked on as we speak, have remuneration attached to them as
well? If it is the case that there is
remuneration attached to the membership in this board, then there is a cost
factor involved in having an unlimited number of potential members to this
board. I would suspect that the
government, with its overweaning concern for cost reduction, would take a very
close look at this potential and suggest that in order to be responsible, they
look at instituting a maximum number and they look at increasing the minimum
number of the members of the board.
The whole
concept that the minister now has more power as a result of these recommended
changes is disturbing, because we believe that it is important that if there is
a committee, if there is an advisory body, if there is a board attached to
legislation, that board should have a reasonable amount of authority. The government has not explained to us the
rationale behind the proposed changes in the makeup and composition of this oil
and natural gas conservation board. It
is unclear why the minimum number has been changed from five to three; it is
unclear why there is no maximum put in place, and so we of course are concerned
with the rationale behind that.
We are also
concerned, Mr. Speaker, with the change in the terms of reference or the
mandate of this board, which had the power to make inquiries, and the decisions
of that board were final. We now find
that basically the board has been reduced in size, it has been narrowed in
scope, and it is only advisory. It does
not have the degree of independence that it had previously.
As I stated in
my earlier comments, the last thing that I want to leave on record or leave the
impression with members opposite is that I am attacking in any way any
individual, actual or hypothetical, who might be appointed to this board. I am raising issues and questions that we
have about the changes that are being proposed in this piece of legislation,
which is our responsibility as opposition members to do.
I would
suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it is the role and obligation of the government to
clarify, not only for the opposition, but for the members of the public at
large the reasoning and rationale behind these amendments. These are not just housekeeping amendments;
these are not just consolidative amendments; these, if we are looking at no
other part of this legislation, then the composition and makeup and
responsibilities of the board are much more than that. They have the potential for major consequences,
and they have the potential for major consequences no matter which government
is in power, no matter which minister is leading this department.
* (1600)
The board, as I
have stated, is now advisory; it has no actual powers. The board receives its powers of inquiry from
the minister. So, in effect, the
minister now tells the board what it can do.
Why has that changed? I have some
suggested reasons why that has changed, and I would be very glad to hear the
minister's explanation for that, and I do hope that the government responds to
these issues and concerns prior to our going to public hearings.
The board, if
it is allowed to make an inquiry by the minister, then submits its findings to
the minister for his or her consideration.
Again, instead of having decision‑making powers which the current
board has, this proposed board has only advisory powers, and it could only
advise the minister on issues that the minister wants to be advised on. Well, I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, this sounds to
me like it is a board that has had its teeth pulled, a board that has very
little, if any, authority and it is open to speculation therefore that it is a
board that is being put into place so that individuals who think like the
government does, who are willing to respond to government initiatives and who
are willing to, in effect, rubber‑stamp the ideas and proposals that the
government has, will now be allowed to do so.
I would hope that is not the case, and I would again reiterate our
concerns on this issue and would hope that the minister clarifies these
positions before we go to public hearings.
Another area
that we have a major concern on in this proposed legislation is within the area
of sustainable development, and again, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the
House have serious concerns about this government's definition of sustainable
development. They have not proven
themselves in the past to be exemplary leaders in this regard. I need go no further than Oak Hammock Marsh
as an excellent, or a dreadful, example of this government's definition of
sustainable development which is whatever the large corporate business
interests want is fine by us. We will do
anything in our power to make sure that those interests supersede any other
concerns and considerations.
I would like to
quote from one of the sections that says, "decisions respecting the
development of oil and gas resources be integrated," and this is where we
are talking about the concept of sustainable development, "with decisions
respecting protection and management of the environment so that oil and gas
industry activity is conducted" not in a vacuum but "with due regard
for its impact on the environment," and conversely that
"environmental concerns are instituted with due regard for the economic
impact."
We have, again,
concerns regarding this section or this area of this bill. We have no problem with the concept of the
fact that you need to have a marriage, if you will, between environmental
issues and economic issues. However, as
I have stated before, this government has a dismal track record in that
regard. Their idea of sustainable
development eliminates almost entirely the environmental concerns; it
emasculates the environmental concerns.
The environmental protection act that was passed by this House last year
is another example of where the minister now has all the power and authority to
do virtually anything he wants to in the environmental area without any
recourse to the public good and the public benefit.
You can
understand, Mr. Speaker, our concerns about the impacts of some of these
elements of the new proposed act. We are
concerned that what will happen, particularly if you have a board that is
composed of one government representative and two representatives of the oil
and gas industry, is that that board with virtually no independent powers of
its own, will take inquiries as they have been framed by the minister and
respond to those inquiries with recommendations to the minister.
I mean, it is a
real shell game here. The government can
then say, well, yes, but the board said we should do this, and the public at
large probably will not understand the changes that have been made to this,
because they will assume that an advisory board will have a certain degree of
independence. Again, it is pulling the
wool over the eyes of the people of
I would suggest
that unless the government can assure us on this side of the House that those
are not the intentions or the potential outcome of these changes to the
legislation, we are going to have some major concerns that will need to be
addressed, I would hope, in debate and discussion on second reading, but
failing that, certainly at the public hearing process.
As I said, we
are very open to the minister and the government telling us that our concerns
are not accurate, that there are safeguards in place, that this will truly be
an independent board, that the changes here do not mean taking away power and
influence and authority and independence from this very important board, but by
our reading of these amendments we do not see that.
We are very
concerned that the environment be protected and be part of any discussion that
takes place surrounding oil and gas development in this province. We do not see that in the composition of the
board. We do not see that concern raised
in the authority taken away from the board, and we do not see that in anything
this government has implemented. Again,
we will ask that the government be particularly careful in its responses to us
on these issues.
I would also
like to just briefly touch on the potential for disaster with the dreadful lack
of environmental controls that we will be operating under if the North American
Free Trade Agreement goes through. If it
does go through, we are convinced that we are in for some major pressures being
put on our already limited environmental protections. Our concern is that this board, as it will be
constituted, will not allow for any kind of check and balance on virtually unlimited
exploration with no due consideration being given to the environmental
impacts. There is nothing in this
legislation that requires that the environmental impacts of exploration of oil
and gas activity be undertaken.
We would like
very much to see that perhaps the composition of the board be expanded to
include a definition of what "experienced" means, that
"experienced" means people with technical understanding be broadened
to include potentially representatives from the oil and gas industry; and if
that is the case, also on the other side to balance it, representatives of the
environmental concerns. As is stated in
Section 2(2) of the bill, both of these concerns must be addressed, but there
is nothing specifically in the bill that activates that concern, so we have
very serious problems with the potential for disaster.
Mr. Speaker, I
would like to close my remarks at this point and again strongly urge the
government to respond to our concerns, which I believe are legitimate, and to
stand in the House in debate on second reading and to attempt to assuage our
concerns so that we can go forward into the public hearing process and hear
what the community at large has to say.
Mr. Speaker: As previously agreed,
this matter will remain standing in the name of the honourable member for
Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
* (1610)
Bill 5‑The Northern Affairs Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Northern and Native Affairs (Mr. Downey), Bill 5,
The Northern Affairs Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les affaires du
Nord, standing in the name of the honourable member of the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 8‑The Insurance Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh),
Bill 8, The Insurance Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les assurances,
standing in the name of the honourable member for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway).
An Honourable
Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 10‑The Farm Lands Ownership Amendment and
Consequential Amendments Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion
of the honourable Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay), Bill 10, The Farm
Lands Ownership Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant la
Loi sur la propriete agricole et apportant des modifications correlatives a
d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Point Douglas
(Mr. Hickes).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
Bill 12‑‑The International Trusts Act
Mr.
Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Justice (Mr.
McCrae), Bill 12, The International Trusts Act; Loi sur les fiducies
internationales, standing in the name of the honourable member for Thompson
(Mr. Ashton).
An Honourable
Member:
Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain standing?
[agreed]
Bill 13‑The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation
Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the
proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson),
Bill 13, The Manitoba Employee Ownership Fund Corporation Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi constituant en corporation le fonds de participation des
travailleurs du Manitoba, standing in the name of the honourable member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie).
An Honourable
Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leave that this matter remain
standing? [agreed]
SECOND
Mr. Speaker: Bill 9, The Winter Roads
(Miscellaneous Amendments) Act; Loi sur les routes d'hiver ‑‑
modifications de diverses dispositions legislatives.
Not proceeding
with it today? Okay, that is fine.
House Business
Mr.
Speaker: The honourable acting government House leader, what are your
intentions, sir?
Hon. Darren
Praznik (Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, as I detect that there are no
further speakers from the opposition benches on any of the matters before this
House, I would ask if there is leave to call it 5 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the
House to call it five o'clock? Agreed? [agreed]
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr.
Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., time for Private Members' Business.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 3‑Individual Line Service
Mr. Edward
Helwer (Gimli): Mr.
Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that
WHEREAS
Individual Line Service is a luxury that people in some parts of the province
have not yet been able to enjoy; and
WHEREAS the
Service for the Future program, the Manitoba Telephone System $800 million
network modernization program, all 47,000 party lines in the province will be
converted to Individual Line Service by the mid‑1990s; and
WHEREAS
Individual Line Service allows people in rural
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba support the Service for the
Future program helping people in rural communities with the modernization of
their telecommunications.
Motion presented.
Mr. Helwer: Mr. Speaker, it is a real
pleasure for me to introduce this resolution because it is of great benefit to
rural communities, rural communities such as I represent in the constituency of
Gimli.
First of all, I
want to tell you a little bit about the Manitoba Telephone System and a little
bit about where it came from and where it started. I started in business myself back in 1963, 30
years ago as a matter of fact. At that
time, we had a phone with the local exchange.
Our phone number was 118, and my house phone number was 118, ring
two. You had to ring the bell, the
operator would come on, and you would tell her what number you wanted. Then she would connect you up. That was just an example of what it was like
in 1963.
An Honourable
Member: My
mother used to be a telephone operator.
Mr. Helwer: That is right. We had a lot of local telephone operators
actually in a small community such as Teulon.
It was a good employer, actually.
That is right, but the time has come for improvements in the
telecommunications. Then we went to the
dial phone with party lines in rural areas.
From there, we went to the newer version of the dial phones, and now we
have a phone system in
As an example,
we have the urban unlimited, which is of great benefit to my community because
of the Stony Mountain‑Stonewall areas, whereby people can phone from
All these
improvements over the years have certainly been a great benefit to the
communities. Today businesses that are
much more sophisticated with computers and fax machines‑‑
An Honourable
Member: Modems.
Mr. Helwer: Modems, that is
right. They can order their products by
fax or by computers. It really brings
the businesses of rural
Today,
businesses also do not have to be in large communities. Farmers today are becoming very sophisticated,
and they have equipment in their farm homes, computers and fax machines. They can be connected up to the grain
exchanges in
So this also
gives services for rural areas, services for many useful purposes, but besides
helping them in their business, it also provides an opportunity for housewives,
whether it be farm wives or people living outside of a community, the
opportunity, with fax machines or computers, to find outside employment or to
provide employment in the home. They can
do a lot of things such as surveys or data processing right in their home. Plus they can do this while they are at home
helping their husbands or their families with the farm operation and also keep
raising their families and creating a much better home life for the whole
family as it is.
Some
improvements have been made with the telephone system in the Gimli‑Fraserwood‑Winnipeg
Beach area. At one time, it was long
distance between Gimli and
Even, as an
example, the Evergreen School Division will be using the telecommunications to
provide television in the schools between Gimli, Arborg and Riverton. These will be hooked up by telephone. So it will certainly improve the quality of
education for many areas and also probably do it at a cost that will save the
school division some money. So these are
great benefits.
* (1620)
There are many
other advantages to the Community Calling areas, individual line service, such
as a number of reasons in the line of safety.
They can call the RCMP. Today,
the people from
When we look at
some of our other communities in the south end of the Interlake or the south
end of my constituency, such as Stonewall,
Stonewall, as
an example, is the fastest growing community in
That has helped
companies such as Ducks Unlimited, who have located at Oak Hammock; Bristol
Aerospace, who are in the
Also, in the
cottage areas along Lake Winnipeg and the Winnipeg Beach‑Gimli area, the
rural
An Honourable
Member: Building for
Mr. Helwer: Well, that is right,
because of the fact that it is close to
An Honourable
Member: Making
Mr. Helwer: That is right. It helps to make
So in closing,
Mr. Speaker, I want to certainly say that the new lines that the Manitoba
Telephone System is installing, where they are making the individual line
service available, such as in the Teulon area, where 600 new customers were
hooked up last year under the individual line service, this is money well
spent. I just want to say that the
Manitoba Telephone System is doing an excellent job. The money that they are spending on the
individual line service and the Community Calling areas is money well
spent. We certainly want to say it has
been a great thing for rural
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Speaker, in the Chair)
So,
Mr. Acting Speaker, in closing I want to congratulate the Manitoba Telephone
System for the improvements they have made to the communities not only in my
constituency, but in all of rural Manitoba to help the quality of life in all
of rural Manitoba.
Thank you.
Committee Change
Mr. Reg
Alcock (Osborne): Mr.
Acting Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for
The Acting
Speaker (Mr. Rose):
Agreed.
* * *
Mr. Gregory
Dewar (Selkirk): Mr.
Acting Speaker, it is a pleasure today to rise and speak on the resolution
brought forward by the member for Gimli on individual line service. Once again, it is a pat on the back of this
government. They have so few positive
things to relate to Manitobans and to this Chamber, so they often do this in
this particular forum during private members' hour.
We on this side
of the House naturally enough support the concept of the resolution. It is one of those you often have from the
government, like motherhood or apple pie.
Of course, you support service to rural Manitobans, and those of us who
are from rural
In fact, my
family last year‑‑and they lived about 20 miles north of here, near
Selkirk‑‑received their individual line service for the first
time. For the very first time they now
have their own line. The phone rings one
ring; that is theirs. Before, when I was younger there was up to maybe 20, 25
individuals who shared that one line, so you can imagine the problems that it
caused for both individuals phoning us and for us trying to phone out.
So again we
support individualized service. We
support Service for the Future program.
As a matter of fact, it is very appropriate that this resolution was
brought up today considering the fact earlier on this afternoon we had the former
Premier of the province here in the Chamber with us, and it was the former
Premier's government, and under the direction of the Leader of the Opposition
(Mr. Gary Doer) when he was the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone
System, that initiated such a program.
It is very
appropriate today that we discuss this type of resolution, again based on the
fact that it was originally initiated by the member for Concordia (Mr. Gary
Doer) and the government of the Pawley administration that introduced expanding
service to rural Manitobans in respect to the telephone system.
* (1630)
The concerns we
have, of course, are the concerns that I know that all Manitobans have. I had the opportunity about two weeks ago to
meet with some employees of the Manitoba Telephone System, and they were
stating that MTS could not have undertaken such a huge capital project like the
Service for the Future‑‑and in the resolution it mentioned that it
was a $800 million program‑‑they would not have been able to do it
under the current competitive situation here that telecommunications in this
country is facing.
So if they had
deregulated the telephone industry in '87 and '88, we would not be debating
this resolution right now because MTS would not be able to afford it, because
you know, Mr. Acting Speaker, that deregulation does not work.
We know for a
fact that deregulation has failed in the transportation industry, and the
member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) has raised this issue time and time again. Somebody has to raise it. It is very appropriate and he has done it in
a very good manner. He has raised the
issue about how deregulation has failed in the transportation industry in this
country.
We have the
railways again announcing, just this past week, 10,000 jobs; the airline
industry, the trucking industry‑‑all because of deregulation, this
government's federal cousins' support of competition, deregulation, all
neoconservative concepts, but they do not work.
It is proven.
I believe even
the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) is reconsidering his
position on deregulation of the railways, of the airline industry in this
country, because he knows that it does not work. It is supposed to improve service, it is supposed
to lower costs, but instead deregulation cuts services, and it is going to
raise costs. It is one of the great
beliefs of the members opposite that competition is the answer.
You know, like
I said, the theory goes that it will bring greater efficiencies, but the
reality is something different. There are lower costs for a very few, and the
rest of us will see higher costs. We
will see this under deregulation of the telephone industry. It has been estimated by the co‑chair
of the CRTC, a Mr. Bud Sherman, who at one time was a member of the government
across the way, he himself concluded in a study that nine out of 10 consumers
or subscribers to the telephone industry in this country will see their rates
increase. Nine out of 10 will see their
rates go up, concluded in the study by Bud Sherman. Only one out of 10 consumers will see their
rates go down. So there it is. There is competition for you. It benefits very few and harms many in this
country.
You will see
the rates‑‑we are seeing this now at MTS. In fact, the Manitoba Crown Corporations
Council recently issued a warning to MTS.
In that particular report, I would like to quote where it says: Council is concerned that government is
facing major exposures with this company due to the risks facing both MTS and
telecommunication industry in this country.
It notes increased competitive pressures from deregulation and has
serious reservations about the Manitoba Telephone System's current operating
plans and longer‑term strategies.
In fact, an internal report leaked by MTS reveals that MTS is planning
to deal with $100 million a year revenue losses to provide large businesses
with a 59 percent cut in their long distance rates.
The report also
stated that ordinary subscribers and small business in this province will only
see a 2 percent cut, and it also went on to explain that medium‑sized
businesses will receive a 38 percent cut.
So the big winners in telephone deregulation are large businesses.
(Mr. Speaker in the Chair)
Here
are some of the ones that have been campaigning actively for it. We have Great‑West Life, Investors
Group, Federal Industries, Richardson Greenshields, and I had a chance to go
and check where these large firms make some of their political donations. It comes as no great surprise that all of these
firms are very, very large donators both to the Conservatives and to the
Liberals. The Liberals have been very
quiet on this issue. We do not know what their position is on deregulation, but
I had a letter back‑‑you know, Axworthy on one side and the critic
on the other. You will see, like I said,
the corporate giants in this country will see their rates go down while the
rest of
What has MTS
done so far to deal with this competition? Well, they brought in the
rightsizing initiative. Rightsizing‑‑well, that is just a euphuism
for downsizing as they laid off a thousand employees. I mean, MTS will be laying off a thousand
employees over the next four years. Of
course, the government recently was at the opening of Unitel. The company Unitel will be creating 400 jobs
here. Unfortunately, Manitobans, though,
will be the net losers as we lose 600 jobs. MTS has cut now 15 percent from its
capital budget. How will they be able to
continue with this Service for the Future program when they will be dealing
with potential losses of $100 million a year?
We know that
MTS will be unfortunately having to raise their rates. In a recent Public Utilities Board judgment,
they raised the rate three times the rate of inflation, and the chairman or the
president of the Telephone System produced a plan calling for the lowering of
its debts by raising basic monthly phone bills by 33 percent. In fact,
Oz Pedde wants
33 percent over four years, so we will be paying well over double our
rates. Subscribers will have to pay; 10
percent of telephone subscribers will see their rates decrease.
This is all going
to lead us, of course, into something we have been always concerned about, the
Americanization of our telephone system.
In the
An Honourable
Member: What kind of beautiful things have happened there?
Mr. Dewar: Right. Exactly.
What they were
promised‑‑the phone companies there promised huge savings to the
consumers, but the real reductions are considerably less. As they were saying, oh, you are going to
save 20 percent, you are going to save 30 percent, but actual savings now are
only around 8 percent. They have had to
charge more for their local service, and they have added new charges as
well. So the situation there is exactly
what we are going to predict is going to happen here, and we are seeing this
happen here now in
Again, there
was a recently released study on the American experience. It stated that 90 percent of telephone users
were worse off after deregulation in the
One of the
saddest things, of course, is it has been estimated in the States that now 25
percent of low‑income Americans no longer have access to a telephone,
which is very regrettable in today's economic conditions.
What we are
really concerned about is that while we support the Service for the Future
program‑‑it is why all of us, of course, support better access for
rural Manitobans‑‑we know there are some situations where the rural
and northerners do not have basic service yet, and so we applaud the government
for that particular program. The only
problem is that the program will not continue.
It will not continue, for how can they possibly deal with these huge
losses and continue with this program, Mr. Speaker?
So while we do
support the program, we do have serious reservations about it continuing, and
as such, I would like to make an amendment, if I may.
I move,
seconded by the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that the resolution be amended
by adding the following:
WHEREAS the
Service for the Future Program would be jeopardized by the present government's
support of telecommunications deregulation policy which limits the resources
available to the Manitoba Telephone System.
And by adding,
at the end of the resolution, the following:
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba call upon the provincial
cabinet to cancel their support of telecommunications deregulation.
* (1640)
Speaker's Ruling
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member
for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) has moved an amendment to private members' Resolution 3
which presents an alternative and relevant proposition which, under
Beauchesne's Citation 567, is acceptable.
However, the "BE IT RESOLVED" portion of the amendment is
virtually identical to the same portion of private members' Resolution 56,
which has been given notice of and is listed on the Order Paper for
consideration.
The amendment
contravenes our Rule 31: "No member
shall revive a debate already concluded during the session or anticipate a
matter appointed for consideration of which notice has been given." I must, therefore, rule the honourable
member's amendment out of order.
* * *
Mr. Reg
Alcock (Osborne): Mr.
Speaker, it does not really matter, I suppose.
I will address some of the comments made by the member for Selkirk (Mr.
Dewar), despite the fact that his amendment was poorly drafted.
I do want to
start off saying that I intend to support this, and I do support this. I do not think it is a bad thing that rural
I do want to
talk a bit about what is sort of behind the debate that is taking place right
now. I think maybe the best way I can do
that is to take note of the fact that Motorola and
That is such a
tremendous advance that it is hard for us to conceptualize it, but that is an
advance that is taking place as people begin to take advantage of the technological
changes. So in a sense what the
government is doing may in fact be overtaken by a successful conclusion of that
program. There is a need still to wire
communities. There is a need to wire
communities, because increasingly we are moving more and more information
digitally and a lot of the things that now go over the airwaves it is predicted
in another decade or so will begin to move over wires. We will begin to see on our TVs a lot more
use of digitized contact systems, information exchange systems, banking and
purchase and all sorts of other kinds of services that can be brought into the
home. In fact, there are some that
suggest we will be able to vote from our homes in the not too distant future.
The point I
think that it brings up is that it is very difficult. You know, we sit and we watch Star Trek and
we see the people slap their shoulders here and speak to anybody anywhere on
the ship at any time and they know exactly where everybody is and they can have
that kind of conversation. That is
presented as something that is taking place four centuries into the future, but
in fact a version of that is happening now. It is happening right now in our
time and could be in place in this world within a decade.
What that does
to our ability to contact each other and relate to each other and communicate
with each other is really hard for us to predict or even comprehend I think at
times. So when I hear the members on my
immediate right here talk about regulation and the need to capture and control
and manage all this somehow as though they can predict all of this and they can
somehow control all of this, I just think it is fatuous nonsense. I really take great exception to this sense
that somehow somebody or some group of people sitting in a room somewhere can
understand what is happening. I think
that the markets do have a good ability to establish prices, to distribute
goods. I think there is a real ability
here to take advantage very quickly and respond very quickly to important
changes in communication technology.
I work with a
group right now. I am on line on a daily
basis with people in
I do want to
raise something with the government that does cause me concern about this, and
it is one of the problems we get into politically when we deal with issues in
this Chamber all the time. I want to
raise the spectre of MTX, not to criticize it, but to ask the government to
rethink it.
I had an
exchange this summer with a woman who is the assistant to the new prime
minister of
As we build
this individual line service we are training a large number of people who can
do that kind of work, so let us not, simply because MTX was a failure, write
off the ability to look around the world and to help those people whom we
employ here continue to be employed providing very important, very valuable services
around the world.
An Honourable
Member:
That is right. Don Orchard
started it.
Mr. Alcock: That is right, and I
think there is a danger because every time‑‑[interjection] Wait a second.
I am not going to take just that side of this debate, because any time
you launch an ambitious adventure you run the risk of failure, you run the risk
of problems. It is risky to do it so you
have got to be careful on how you calculate the risk, and you have got to be
careful how you evaluate the risk, but do not close your eyes to it simply
because every time we raise the three letters MTX in this Chamber everybody
goes oh.
* (1650)
Let us look at
it on behalf of the people whom we employ through MTS to see if we can give
them some opportunities to use their skills and to have
I think what
the government is doing with the ILS system is a good thing, and I certainly,
for one, support it. I think they
deserve to be congratulated, and if this comes to a vote I will vote for it,
but I would ask them just to think a little more broadly about it to see if
there is a way in which they can open that door and to give some opportunities
to the people we employ.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
Mr. Bob Rose
(Turtle Mountain): I
appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important resolution this
afternoon, and I would first of all like to respond to the member for Selkirk
(Mr. Dewar) who first of all admitted, of course, that this government
undertaking is an excellent undertaking and then attempted to take credit for
it for his party sometime in the distant past.
It rather seems
to me that he illustrated the problem of why his area just north of Selkirk had
to wait till last year to get individual party lines when he brought in an
amendment that was unacceptable. I guess
that is an indication that the planning that they had, however many years ago,
was not adequate either. They must still have the same people providing advice,
because even 20 years later they cannot even bring in a proper amendment. It indicates to me that if we had been a
little more forward and had a little better planning a number of years ago we
might now all be profiting from individual line service. As an individual, I can certainly relate to
the importance of this particular undertaking, having lived on a rural party
line almost all of my life.
As the mover
the honourable member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) pointed out, one of the great
advantages of bringing in individual line service is not only the convenience
of having an individual line and having an opportunity to have a line to
yourself and not have to share it with someone else, but it is also the
opportunity to use some of the advanced equipment that has become available in
the last few years, such as fax machines, which will not operate on a party
line, and computers or mobile or wireless phones.
As always, I
suppose, progress does have its cost.
Those of us who did have a great deal of experience with party lines
will miss some of the things, some of the neighbourliness, I guess, that we
enjoyed with the party line service, because there was always a friend and
neighbour who shared the line with you. Somehow you did not feel quite so
isolated, I guess, living out in the country when you knew there were others on
the same phone line.
As the
honourable member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) pointed out, years ago, quite a
number of people shared the same phone line, so it became sort of a little
community. I know at home we had our
automatic line ring whenever we wanted to call a community meeting. I have forgotten what it was. I think it was seven rings‑‑three
long and three short or whatever.
Anybody in the community could turn the little crank whatever the number
was. Everybody on the party line would come on, and we would have a community
meeting on the long cold winter nights.
Of course,
another thing that we miss as the technology progresses in rural
I think the
honourable member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) did make some excellent points in
his presentation. I was pleased to hear
that he is firmly supportive of this resolution. I am assuming that when I complete my remarks
in just a moment we will have good solid support from all members of the House
to pass this resolution. I think the
member for Osborne is to be congratulated for his broad approach to this and
his recognition of the kind of service that this government is providing to
rural
He makes the
point that technology is moving very, very quickly, almost mind‑bogglingly
quickly, and I concur with that. The suggestion that we may very well, within a
relatively short period of time, be communicating by voice almost totally
through satellite is not without a good foundation. In some of our discussions about advancing
cellular service across
Technology in
the communications field, as well as most other fields, but particularly in the
communications field, has absolutely exploded in the last quarter of a century
or so. Things that we accept as commonplace, like fax machines for example,
were things that were unheard of 10 years or so ago. So who can guess what kind of equipment, what
kind of communication systems may very well be in place within the next 10
years.
Coming back to
this particular resolution, from the point of view of those of us who live in
rural
So, Mr.
Speaker, I just wanted to add those few words to the record, and I certainly
urge all honourable members to support this resolution.
Thank you.
Mr. John
Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to see the government congratulating themselves on a
program that was initiated through an extensive groundwork that was done by the
previous government in
Now there are
some things that really are relevant to this whole discussion. The member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) raised a
couple of things. I am not surprised to
see him coming down the side of deregulation, supporting the government in its
moves to deregulate. We have to remember
that in order for the Manitoba Telephone System to have the revenues to
undertake these kinds of massive capital programs to modernize service‑‑and
I would not call it a luxury that the member who moved this resolution from
Gimli referred to in his resolution, a luxury that people in some parts of the
province have not yet been able to enjoy.
I would call that, nowadays, basic service which they have a right to,
and it is long overdue. I agree that it
must be done.
The Manitoba
Telephone System would not be able to undertake this kind of thing if we did
not have the kinds of revenue over the years that we have been able to receive
from long distance service as well as basic service. Long distance service across this country of
course, as the minister knows, provided about 60 percent of the revenue
traditionally for the Manitoba Telephone System and, therefore, made it
possible to undertake major capital programs.
This, as my colleague the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) said, would not
be possible under the deregulation scenario supported by the minister and by
the Liberals here. Let us make that very
clear.
* (1700)
The
Conservatives and Lloyd Axworthy, the Liberals, who initiated deregulation in this
country under the Trudeau government, followed lock step by the Conservatives
when they came back in government here in
Well, the
member talks about
Now, they say,
oh, the NDP increased the rates. Let
them not blame the government that inherited this terrible legacy from
Devine. That is why they have to
increase the rates. It was their policy;
it was the Devine policy. We know
it. We know why. We cannot rewrite
Now the member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) talked about MTX, and it is interesting in historical
perspective. When the member for
Pembina, as minister responsible for the Telephone System in 1980, created MTX,
he did so illegally. He passed it by
Order‑in‑Council. He did not
have a subsidiary in place, so that had to take place later on. Our government did in fact follow through on
the initiatives started by the now Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) at that
time. The reason the Minister of Health
started MTX in the first place is that he recognized, as the member for Osborne
said, that there was opportunity for the expertise that had been developed in
personnel in Manitoba over the years at the Manitoba Telephone System to be in
fact exported to other countries that did not have that expertise and could
benefit.
I want to just
say that in the context of today, with the changing world, with the collapse of
the Eastern Bloc and the modernization that is going to have to take place in
many of those countries, we probably have a more marketable commodity now than
ever in terms of the expertise. [interjection]
Well, the minister asked, can they pay for it?
Yes, if they can pay for our wheat, and we sometimes wonder‑‑but
there is credit being extended throughout the world, and the International
Monetary Fund is looking at this to help bring them out of the 18th Century and
into a modern situation. Yes, they will
need our expertise, and, yes, they will find ways to pay for it, and so we have
to be ready.
I have to agree
with the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) on that, that we should not be shying
away because of the experience in an Arab country where certainly a lot of
extenuating circumstances and individuals resulted in an experience that was
certainly less than favourable, that this government now should never look at
that kind of thing in the future.
As it was said,
it was started under the Sterling Lyon government with MTX; it was continued
under the Pawley government; now this government should remember. I know in the early years when I was minister
responsible for the Telephone System‑‑and the briefings from the
Telephone System at that time certainly showed a very good opportunity, the
possibilities of opportunities there of using our expertise abroad. So we followed cautiously, very cautiously,
very small in the first few years. I can
only speak about when I was involved, in 1982 and '83. I can tell the minister at this time that we
were only putting in terms of liability in the hundreds of thousands of
dollars, nothing even in the millions at that time. It was very cautious and very small.
It was
something that I am not sure that the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) when he
was minister responsible for the Telephone System would have been as cautious
as we were in the initial stages. He was
really going on this thing. I mean, all
of the documents show that this member for Pembina (Mr. Orchard) was going hell
bent for leather on this thing. He was
moving straight ahead on MTX, and he was not looking back. The only thing that caught him was November
17, the election. That stopped him. That was the only thing that stopped him in
1981. He breathed a sigh of relief after he saw that some things were not going
as smoothly as he had hoped, and then he started attacking there because he
knew that he was in trouble.
Mr. Speaker,
let me say that the rural upgrading‑‑[interjection] Well, the Minister of Health has been pretty quiet
on this because he knows that he is guilty right up to the top of his head on
this one. We want to see rural
development, rural upgrading of the system.
We certainly do not want to see the competition that is going to take
away all of the revenues from the MTS of the future.
It is possible,
if this government wanted to follow the policies that have been in place by
Conservative, Liberal and NDP governments over the years, regardless of the
changing technology, to ensure that there was a monopoly for the telephone
system on these services, that could still have been provided if there had been
a united stand by Saskatchewan and Manitoba with publicly owned telephone
systems. We know that.
The CRTC could
not have imposed that on
Hon. Glen
Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The
Mr. Plohman: Now, the minister for
Telephones says, you cannot live in the past.
The thing is they want to rewrite history here. They want to leave the impression that they
are not responsible. Let me tell you, we
will ensure that we give the people of
An Honourable
Member: We
will compare rates in
Mr. Plohman: We know what happened in
We will
probably see a billion dollars in deficits.
You have increased $700 million from the surplus we left you in
1988. Do not forget that. We talk about mismanagement, look at
yourselves in the mirror just as Grant Devine had to do, because they were the
greatest mismanagers that
Hon. Donald
Orchard (Minister of Health): It will not sell anymore, John.
Mr. Plohman: It is selling right
now. The Minister of Health says it will
not sell. I will tell you that people in
Now, I am going
to close by saying that the individual line service is a positive move. We want these kinds of services to be
maintained in the future. They will only
be maintained if the revenues for the Telephone System are secure, and we will
support policies that ensure secure revenues for the MTS without jacking it up
on the backs of the local ratepayers who are going to pay the burden of this
government's policies if they are not changed.
Thank you, Mr.
Speaker.
* (1710)
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, could you
tell me how much time is left?
Mr. Speaker: Two minutes.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the comments that have come from all sides today. Certainly the initiatives of the Manitoba
Telephone System in terms of service in the future are very good for all of
rural Manitoba, but I am a little disappointed in the members of the official
opposition party talking about deregulation because there is no deregulation of
the Telephone System in Manitoba or in Canada.
We have
competition because consumers want it, because it promotes economic activity. [interjection] Mr. Speaker, these
members do not want to face the facts of life.
CRTC went across this country, had hearings right across the country, broadly
supported by the consumers and all the business community of this country.
When the ruling
came down to establish a level of competition, the consumers said they could
not have written a better ruling if they had written it themselves. That is how much the consumers support it.
The member
conveniently ignores the fact that the competitor pays the same level of
contribution that the Manitoba Telephone System pays from long distance to
support local rates. He conveniently
ignores the fact that the
The ability of
Manitobans to access services that are globally available is because we have a
competitive environment that allows that to develop, and the fact that 400 jobs
were announced for the city of Winnipeg just last week, he ignores that also,
to give Manitobans a choice of all the services available globally, give us a
chance to access the globe with the high level of technology that the member
for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) talks about. In
terms of Manitoba Telephone System staff exporting their technology, we do not
oppose that provided it is an economic opportunity and that it does not require
the investment of capital.
It was the MTX,
the investment of capital from here, that was the problem. It was not the export of technology. If there is an opportunity to do that in some
country that is able to pay the bills, we can and will be able to do it. But, yes, we all know the sensitivities of
the MTX. It was an unfortunate affair,
but the member talks about all the money he put into the system. Back when he
was in government, they lost $20 million one year, $28 million the next
year. How is that called funding the
future? It is not funding the
future. We came into government, we make
$15 million, we make $19 million, we make $39 million. That is money used to
reduce the debt service charges of the future.
It is money used to fund the pension plan which they did not fund for
his employees.
If we can
expand the opportunity of Manitobans to do business in the world, we will
attract more jobs to
So I thank the
member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) for this resolution, and I thank‑‑
Mr.
Speaker: Order, please. When this
matter is again before the House, the honourable minister will have 12 minutes
remaining.
The hour being
6 p.m., this House is now adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m.
tomorrow (Thursday).