LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Tuesday,
April 27, 1993
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE
PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING
PETITIONS
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Abegele
Aster, Terry Peterson, Karen White and others requesting the Minister of Family
Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the student social
allowances program.
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Dewar). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural programming,
housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance, advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Ms. Cerilli). It
complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with
the rules. Is it the will of the House
to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS
WHEREAS over 1,000 young adults are
currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their education through the
student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS
WHEREAS the provincial government has already
changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the
City of
WHEREAS the provincial government is now
proposing to eliminate the student social allowances program; and
WHEREAS eliminating the student social allowances
program will result in more than a thousand young people being forced onto city
welfare with no means of getting further full‑time education, resulting
in more long‑term costs for city taxpayers.
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
* * *
Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the
honourable member (Mr. Leonard Evans).
It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and
complies with the rules. Is it the will
of the House to have the petition read? [agreed]
Mr. Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of
the
WHEREAS the United Nations has declared
1993 the International Year of the World's Indigenous People with the theme,
"Indigenous People: a new
partnership"; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
totally discontinued funding to all friendship centres; and
WHEREAS the provincial government has
stated that these cuts mirror the federal cuts; and
WHEREAS the elimination of all funding to
friendship centres will result in the loss of many jobs as well as the services
and programs provided, such as:
assistance to the elderly, the homeless, youth programming, the socially
disadvantaged, families in crisis, education, recreation and cultural
programming, housing relocation, fine options, counselling, court assistance,
advocacy;
WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray
that the Legislative Assembly of
PRESENTING
REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to
report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Third Report
of the Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources.
Mr. Clerk (William
Remnant): To the honourable Legislative Assembly of
Your Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources presents the following as its Third Report.
Your committee met on Monday, April 26,
1993, at 10 a.m. in Room 255 of the
Mr. Wally Fox‑Decent, Chairperson;
Mr. Tom Farrell, Chief Executive Officer; Mr. Alfred Black, Executive Director
of Benefits; and Mr. Lorne McMillan, Executive Director of Finance and
Administration of the Workers Compensation Board of
Your committee has considered the 1991 and
1992 Annual Reports of the Workers Compensation Board of
Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable
member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), that the report of the committee be
received.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction
of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the
Also this afternoon, from the Portugese
Cultural Association, we have 12 students under the direction of Ms. Florence
Burshtein. This school is located in the
constituency of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale).
On behalf of all honourable members, I
would like to welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL
QUESTION PERIOD
Western
Grain Transportation Act
Government
Position
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the First
Minister.
Last December the federal government
unilaterally cut the supports for transportation of grain in western
Yesterday, again, the federal government
announced further cuts in the transportation payments to producers and put in a
new clause or condition for '95 and then '96, that they would consider changing
making these payments now to the producer if the producers went along with the
changes and the method of transportation under the Western Grain Transportation
Act.
Many farm organizations now today have
expressed their concern about the lack of consultation, the lack of consensus
on this major change in transportation policy.
The federal minister has said that they are acting in accordance with
the
Given the fact that
* (1335)
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): I find it interesting that all of a sudden
the Leader of the Opposition is concerned about the costs of grain
transportation for farmers when just a week ago he and his colleagues voted
against a reduction of the railway fuel transportation tax, a reduction of 3.5
cents a litre that would save millions of dollars in the costs of grain
transportation for
That is the kind of two‑faced
approach that we have from the Leader of the Opposition, who conveniently finds
reasons to say he is a friend of the farmers, but when he has a chance to vote
for something that is good for the farmers he votes against it.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, with
respect to the issue of western grain transportation, our Minister of
Agriculture (Mr.
He does not have a preconceived hangup, a
blinkered view of this issue. He is
willing, on behalf of farmers, to look at all sides of the issue to make sure
that we do what is best for farmers.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the Premier did not give an
answer to the question. He took the
same, usual step‑aside approach to these very major economic decisions facing
Western
Grain Transportation Act
Impact
Rail Industry
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the government did have a study
a couple of years ago dealing with grain transportation, and it did note that a
change in payments to the producers would have various impacts on the
transportation system in western
I would like to ask the Premier: What will the impact of these changes be on
the transportation jobs, particularly railway jobs, in
Hon. Glen Findlay
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the
ability of grain farmers in
Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work with
the farmers of
The advisory council has had numerous
studies. I believe there are three by
Deloitte and Touche and one by the University of Manitoba Transportation
Institute, looking at all the angles on the subject so when we get to the final
negotiation table, which it seems we are being pushed to now, we have all the
facts in front of us to evolve what is the right position for Manitoba farmers.
* (1340)
Western
Grain Transportation Act
Impact
Highway System
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Premier (Mr. Filmon) did not
take a position here today with the question.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) unfortunately did not tell us
what the impact is on railway jobs.
I would like to ask a third question on
this issue, Mr. Speaker. The
government's own study on the change in payment going from the railways to the
producers also indicated that along with rail line abandonment and the decline
in railway jobs in
I would like to ask the government, the
Premier, as head of the Economic Development Committee of Cabinet: What is the cost to our highway system with
the change in the transportation policy in
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I want to correct the Leader of
the Opposition when he says that I did not answer the question. The fact of the matter is, I did answer the
question.
I said that unlike the Leader of the
Opposition, who will take a position without knowing any of the facts, we are
only going to take a position when we know exactly what are the impacts and
what are the consequences for the farm community, when we have all the
information and we have all the facts at our disposal. We will develop that information base co‑operatively
with the farmers because ultimately it is their interests that we are here to
protect.
Emergency
Room
Physicians
Strike
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, emergency rooms at the five
community hospitals in
Can the minister advise this House today
what the status is of those facilities and what impact this will have on
patient care?
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as we are speaking, a meeting is
commencing at the urban hospital level to assure that contingency plans will
provide for the maximum emergency service.
Seven Oaks is not open for any emergency
services now; that was contrary to earlier reports. The other four hospitals are accepting 8 a.m.
to 8 p.m. red diversions of ambulance.
That is the most severe ambulance code.
Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface are operating under normal
circumstances‑‑if that is the appropriate phraseology‑‑and
are providing backup to the other five community hospitals, Sir.
Later this afternoon I hope to have maybe
more information from the meeting that is occurring this afternoon to indicate how
patient emergencies can be safely managed to keep the utmost in safety of
Manitobans and Winnipeggers in mind.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that
response. Doctors involved in this
dispute have been under the impression that they had a concluded agreement with
this government with respect to emergency services and their involvement in
it. This agreement was entered into
apparently three to four months ago.
How can the minister explain to this House
today that it has taken four months to implement an agreement that the doctors
thought was in place that would have prevented this situation from occurring in
the first place?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations and the
discussions that were undertaken were multifaceted. It was not a simple issue of the compensation
level which is, of course, the one issue that gets the most often
attention. These are salaried emergency
medical officers and the negotiations were around a renewed salary benefit
package.
There were other considerations to the
discussions in terms of the operation of emergency departments and how those
emergency departments can be better operated in today's context of diminishing
resources to assure that we are able to provide the utmost in emergency
services at these respective facilities, and not to see, as happens from time
to time, the less appropriate use of emergency facilities at hospitals our most
acute and expensive access to the hospital system, and to assure that the
resources we dedicate there are appropriately meeting needs of the 600,000
Winnipeggers who rely on them.
* (1345)
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
minister: We had an agreement that was
supposedly entered into three to four months ago that doctors believe would be
implemented. We have the Moe Lerner task
force reporting this summer. We have
basically a strike or work‑to‑rule situation in emergency
wards. How is the minister proposing to
solve this situation and solve it as soon as possible?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the process of
discussions and negotiations. It is not,
as I mentioned in my earlier answer, that it is not simply an issue of
compensation, although that is part of the issue.
My honourable friend referred to Dr.
Lerner's report on emergency services which may well be presented to government
within the next couple of months. That
provides guidance in terms of the better operations that we can achieve with
our emergency medical officers in terms of operation of emergencies at our community
hospitals, with implications obviously to emergency services in all our
hospitals.
Federal
Budget
Impact on
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, federal budgets in the past few
years have not treated
I would like to ask the Finance minister
if he has been advised as to the impact of a cut of this magnitude.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): The short answer to
the question is no, Mr. Speaker, we have not been advised either directly or by
internal analysis as to what the impact of the billions that the member cites
will be on the province. Certainly, by our first reading and by all indications
by our officials who were in
Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, in this instance equal means $152
million fewer dollars coming into this province in this fiscal year than was in
the previous fiscal year. I am surprised
that the Minister of Finance has no analysis of this.
Federal
Budget
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing:
I would like to ask the minister
responsible for Housing what impact the changes to CMHC are going to have on
housing in this city.
Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister
of Housing): Mr. Speaker, we have no detailed analysis yet,
other than the reference in the budget speech yesterday of the potential impact
of social housing and the capping of CMHC's overall budget.
It is a very complex formula that deals
with both allocation of units to individual provinces and then, Mr. Speaker,
following that as to cost‑shared opportunities, because obviously the
cost of building a house in
At the best of times we have difficulty,
Mr. Speaker, in determining exactly what unit allocations will apply across the
country. This will, no doubt, even
complicate the matters more.
Federal
Budget
Impact
Cultural Programs
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my final question is to the
minister responsible for Culture.
We know, from this budget, that ERDA
agreements in forestry and mining are not going to be continued. We also heard this morning that other
agreements are going to be allowed to lapse and not be continued, including
agreements in the area of culture.
Has the Minister of Culture been advised
of this?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, we are still, within the department,
trying to determine what the exact impacts of the reductions to culture will
be. We will be monitoring the situation
extremely closely over the next period of time to try to see what the impacts
will be.
Mineral
Development Agreement
Federal Funding
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Energy and Mines.
Since this government took office,
approximately 1,200 miners have lost their jobs. In this government's budget, the Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness) raided the treasury of the Manitoba Mineral Resources,
which is a Crown corporation involved in mining in the province, to the tune of
some $16 million, simply to make the minister's deficit look smaller, without
any regard for the impact on mining communities in northern
Yesterday, we learned that the federal
government is going to discontinue funding to the Mineral Development Agreement
in the
My question to the Minister of Energy and
Mines is simply: Was this minister consulted, and does he approve and agree
with the cuts that were announced by the federal Finance minister?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, just a response to the preamble, the reason that the province has
seen, in this last two or three years, difficulty and a loss in the mining
sector is because under the previous administration‑‑[laughter]
Well, they can laugh about it if they
like, Mr. Speaker, but under the previous administration their policies and
their attitude towards the mining sector drove investment out of this
province. I can find many mining
individuals who have stated precisely that.
Under the old NDP administration, where there was a 50 percent
participation by government with the mining sector, it in fact drove investment
out of this province. It drove
exploration out of this province.
Mr. Speaker, the answer directly to the
question‑‑was I consulted?‑‑is no.
* (1350)
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to ask the
minister whether he is aware of what impact it will be. I think we should tell the minister that it
will mean $28 million fewer for both mining and forestry in the
Mining
Industry
Government
Initiatives
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): My question to the minister is: Is he prepared
now to commit the province to continue the mineral exploration and the
geological mapping that is ongoing in the province that is required for the
future security of the mining industry in the province? Is he prepared to commit the province to
continuing that work?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Energy and Mines): Mr.
Speaker, over the last two budgets, this government has done more in two
budgets than he did in the six years that he sat as the minister responsible
for the government in new mining incentives, in exploration incentives and
prospector grubstaking incentives to find new developments in this province.
We have identified new mine status for
several mines. In fact, I think there
has been progress made and we will continue to work to support the mining
sector to the best of our ability in
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, the minister is spouting nonsense
once again.
Forestry
Industry
Reforestation
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Natural Resources.
Some $13 million has been pulled out of
regional development agreements for forestry, which is the second most
important industry in northern
My question is to the minister: Will this government be living up to its
commitment, and how will it meet the commitments made under the federal program
to reforestation, the supporting of the forest industry in the
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the honourable
member's question, if for no other reason than to remind Manitobans that this
government, for the first time in the history of forestry services in this
province, has signed contractual agreements with forestry operators that insist
on replacing a living tree with every tree that is harvested.
I will examine very carefully the impact
of any reductions with respect to the forestry
Economic
Growth
Interest
Rates
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
The basis of continuing deficits in this
province is the lack of revenue growth, which in turn results from inadequate
economic growth. Because of the Bank of
Canada's tight monetary policy, inflation has been wrestled to the ground
resulting in economic stagnation, massive and chronic unemployment and growing
poverty.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of
Finance: Will the Minister of Finance,
when he attends the meeting of Finance ministers being called presumably by Mr.
Mazankowski, make a plea for a reduction in real interest rates in this country
to help stimulate the economy?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, the
member talks about wrestling to the ground.
The only thing I know that has been wrestled to the ground is the
support of the NDP party across this country.
Mr. Speaker, the member‑‑
Some Honourable Members:
Oh, oh.
Mr. Manness: Let it come, let it come.
Mr. Speaker, the member implores the
government, when we are meeting with other Ministers of Finance late in May, to
call upon the federal Minister of Finance to insist that the Bank of Canada
reduce interest rates by a greater amount.
Mr. Speaker, we do that at every
meeting. I know the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
does that at every meeting of First Ministers.
We have called upon the Bank of Canada, through the Minister of Finance
now over several years, to reduce the real rate of interest in this country. We will do so again, bearing in mind, I
understand the Canadian dollar has dropped three‑quarters of one cent
today and that there has been a response upward in the federal bank rate as
announced today.
* (1355)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, I note that even the IMF has
stated yesterday that there is room for a reduction in real interest rates.
Taxation
System
Corporate
Rate
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister: Would he be prepared at this meeting to
advocate a change in the federal government's regressive tax policies to make
the corporations and the wealthy of this country pay their fair share?
There are 60,000 profitable corporations
that will pay no taxes in 1992. Our
wealthiest have the lowest taxes of any country in the OEC nations, and we have
the highest number of billionaires per capita anywhere in the world.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I would
love to engage in debate here. The
member talks about regressive taxes versus progressive. I know that he then would like
The budget that I brought down, the
members attacked us for going back to a regressive tax system. Now I say it is still more progressive than
basically the one that is in
I indicated to the member opposite that we
are well aware that there are many Canadians who are deferring income. The reality is, it is coming to be
understood. It just is not corporations
that are deferring income. The greatest
deferrers of income are the individuals, those of us who are sitting here and
everywhere who put away money for double RRSPs.
We are the greatest ones in not paying maybe our share of taxes, because
of the fact we are deferring them.
Mr. Speaker, yes, it is easy to go after
those corporations that are not paying their tax. We will.
We have, in our country, in our province. That is why we have not provided a payroll
tax exemption for every company. Indeed,
the larger ones, we said, should have no base figure.
We will continue that approach, and we
will also ask for a tax on taxable income, as we have for several years now.
Economic
Growth
Provincial
Comparisons
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): My final question, Mr. Speaker, to the
minister is: There are some more figures
that came out from Stats Canada today, and I want to know: Why is
Housing starts are down by 51.1 percent in
the first three months. We are ranking
10th out of 10 of the Canadian provinces.
Retail sales are stagnant. We are
10th out of 10 in retail sales the first two months of this year. Manufacturing shipments have declined by 1.9
percent in the first two months, ranking us eighth out of 10.
Why are we doing so poorly?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): When the member comes
up short asking a question, he goes back to the old goody. He finds an
individual statistic, Mr. Speaker. He
finds one forecaster, and, of course, if the ranking is not so good that is the
one we hear about. We never hear about
the third rank of the Conference Board for '92.
We never hear of any of those ranks.
Mr. Speaker, whereas the NDP government in
the past bought their economic growth number by borrowing money‑‑and
the legacy of that, of course, is in $550 million interest costs every year, we
have taken a more responsible approach.
Manitobans in the vast majority support
this government and the approach it is taking.
We are on the right track.
Emergency
Room
Physicians
Strike
Mr. Gulzar Cheema (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Health.
We are very concerned about the emergency
room physicians from five hospitals who are striking this morning. The issue is causing great concern in the
community. Also, the issue is not new to
this province.
As the doctors are saying, the minister's
department has not acted upon an agreement at this time. They had an agreement several months ago.
Can the Minister of Health tell us how
long they have known that the strike was going to take place?
* (1400)
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, these
discussions and difficulties with the salaried emergency physicians has been an
ongoing discussion. I think my
honourable friend might recall that there was a threat of a strike at one of
the community hospitals, I believe in 1990.
That issue has been one that we have been
trying to resolve not simply from the monetary approach, as I indicated
earlier, but from a complete examination of emergency room operation in our
hospitals. So the solution is not simply
one which may well be monetary in part, but rather in how we manage and use the
expertise that is available to manage our emergency rooms much more effectively
for Manitobans. The key players to that,
of course, are directors of emergencies and their staff.
So a solution from the monetary side may
well be achievable, but without the benefit of some significant input on how we
can operate emergency rooms in a more effective fashion, I think would only be
a partial solution. We are seeking a
complete solution, Sir.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Health tell
us what are the major difficulties the emergency room physicians and the
emergency services are facing in
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of challenges
at the emergency departments, not the least of which is compensation. There is the stress level. There are the hours, and there is some
difference in terms of compensation methods.
As I had indicated earlier, the five
hospitals that are affected by this particular bargaining unit, these are
salaried emergency medical officers.
Other emergencies have services provided by fee‑for‑service
emergency physicians and those seem to be working, at least at this stage of
the game, a little more effectively.
Clearly, in terms of utilization of
emergency, emergencies are just that, for emergencies. There has to be an opportunity to manage our
resource there properly so that we can assure that we meet the emergency
medical needs. That is, of course, what
we are trying to achieve in this discussion and the investigations by several
task forces.
Mr. Cheema: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the
public that the patients will not suffer while the strike is on? Can he outline what are the action plans they
have put forward to our various hospitals?
Mr. Orchard: Mr. Speaker, currently four of the community
hospitals, excluding Seven Oaks, are accepting from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. the red
ambulance services which are the most urgent.
There is an arrangement with Health Sciences Centre and St. Boniface
currently in which individuals who would normally have presented for service at
a community hospital emergency should they be stabilized and need admission,
after presenting at either Health Sciences Centre or St. Boniface, they will be
transferred back and admitted to any five of the community hospitals. That interim arrangement exists now.
As I speak, the urban hospital
administrators and staff are meeting to further refine contingency plans so
that we can meet medical emergencies for Winnipeggers relying on the hospital
system.
Occupational
Health and Safety Regulations
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour's
proclamation for today, the day to commemorate and mourn the workers who have
lost their lives or been injured on the job, says it is a day to renew
approaches to government for tougher occupational health and safety standards
and more effective compensation. To me,
this suggests that the minister is going to finally after two years implement
the regulations for Workplace Safety and Health committees and fulfill his
commitment under this proclamation.
Can the Minister of Labour tell us when he
is going to fulfill that commitment and implement those regulations?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to
comment on this particular matter, because if the member for Radisson had done
a little work and research in speaking to members of the Workplace Safety and
Health Advisory Committee, with which I have had many discussions over the last
number of months‑‑and I should tell her this regulation stems back
over a number of years when her party was in power.
But there were some problems‑‑
An Honourable Member: You changed it.
Mr. Praznik: Well, the Leader of the Opposition says it is
changing it. I had discussions with the
Manitoba Federation of Labour. There
were particular problems with the administrative difficulties in the regulation
as it was structured. We have worked
through some of those problems with the acceptance of the Federation of Labour,
with members of the Workplace Safety and Health Advisory Committee, and I
believe the drafting of the legal wording of such a regulation is now underway.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell us who was it
that raised those concerns, because this regulation had been passed unanimously
by the workers, the employers, and the technical professionals on that committee?
Mr. Praznik: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to
tell the member. Those concerns were
raised within my own department by the staff who would have to administer that
regulation, who are not members of that committee. Part of the whole effort of involving our
employees in the work that they have to do, and ensuring that we can act
administratively with efficiency in administration, was involving the staff in
the Department of Labour in that process.
There were some problems raised, and I say
to the member that I met with the Manitoba Federation of Labour Workplace
Safety and Health Committee. I discussed
these issues with them; they recommended even some changes that could
accommodate the matter, and that is what we have worked through the process.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for two years
to have these regulations to make workplaces safer and healthier. When are they
going to be implemented?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I say this to the member for
Radisson with all sincerity. I think she
should try to understand the issue that was really involved, and that is the
ability when a particular matter has not been dealt with at the Workplace
Safety and Health Committee for three occasions, that there be a mechanism to
see it adjudicated at the Labour Board, and the problem we had with some
unnecessary administrative steps that were encompassed in the original
recommendation that actually, quite frankly, had no reason to be there. We have worked that through.
I say this to members opposite: We were working through the process with the
Department of Justice and I wanted to take the wording back to the people who
developed the regulations to ensure they are comfortable with it. It is in that process.
Education
System
Funding
Formula
Mr. John Plohman
(Dauphin): Yesterday, at the Seven Oaks rally at the
Legislature, the Minister of Education tried to use the same arguments to
explain away her government's cuts to education as she uses in the letters that
she sends to the public and to concerned citizens.
In a letter to Mr. Hobbs of Flin Flon of
April 23, just a few days ago, she said, and I quote: It should be noted that, in total, increases
in government funding for elementary and secondary education for the last five
years were above the rates of inflation during that period.
Mr. Speaker, just to make certain the
minister is correct on her facts, I want to ask the minister in this to tell
the House what precisely the inflation rate was during those last five years
and what the increase in funding to the public education system was during that
same period.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, again, I stand by the commitment of this government to education in
the past few years and the position and the priority that this government has
placed on education in the past five years of its mandate.
Mr. Plohman: Some commitment, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to ask this minister‑‑and
I will table this‑‑in light of the fact that inflation over the
last five years was a total of 18 percent and the increase in public school
support was only 14.2 percent, nearly 4 percent less in five years, will she
now correct this misinformation and provide only the truth in her letters to
the public?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the commitment of this government
is evident. I ask that member to look at
his government's record and how he funded public school education in the years
when his party was in power.
Mr. Plohman: This must be the minister's new‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
* (1410)
Mr. Plohman: When the minister meets with the Seven Oaks
school board in the near future, as was stated at the rally yesterday by the
Seven Oaks school board, will she provide only the facts and proper information
and the truth to the people of the Seven Oaks school board and listen to them
and‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows I do meet
regularly with school divisions. The
Let me just provide some information since
the member has just been so concerned about the priority of education funding
from this government. Let me just remind
the other side, in 1987, what the former Minister of Education, the member for
Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) said. They have
had so much difficulty discussing our priority of health, education and also
considering the deficit. The former
member for Flin Flon, Minister of Education at the time, in 1987, said: Education is the province's third priority after
paying down the deficit and supporting health care services.
Department
of Family Services
Funding
Transfer
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Yesterday, in Estimates, he indicated that
$15 million was being shifted over to the Department of Education. Mr. Speaker, the line with the Department of
Education has seen $5 million taken away.
I would ask either one of those two ministers to explain that.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I would certainly invite the member for
What I did indicate was, the training programs
that were once housed in Family Services have now been moved over to Education,
as well as some other programming from the Department of Labour.
Education
Advisory Committees
Recommendations
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, we have a number of advisory committees in the Department of
Education. I am not sure to which
committee the member is referring at this time.
We have had the Advisory Committee on Education on our new finance model
and that committee has been working actively.
We did incorporate their six priority recommendations into the Ed
funding formula in this year and that seems to me to have been action based on
the recommendations of an advisory committee.
Employment
Training Programs
Government
Initiatives
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
My question to the minister is: What is this government doing in terms of
providing the training and retraining programming that is necessary in order to
get Manitobans back into the workforce?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, one of the very most priority recommendations of the Skills Training
Advisory Committee was to set up a program like Workforce 2000. This government, in fact, has the program
Workforce 2000 operating, and it has trained over 43,000 Manitobans.
Clean
Environment Commission Hearings
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of
Environment again refused to consider holding hearings outside and downstream
of the
Can the minister tell the House today
whether he is willing to at least delay the hearings until the fall so that
farmers and people most affected will have a better opportunity to attend these
hearings?
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, we have delayed the hearings into June in order to accommodate those who
work in a rural setting to be able to finish their main portions of their
spring work. This hearing process has
been put forward for the last six months, an opportunity for reaction to the
original EIA and the subsequent amendments.
I think it is appropriate that the hearings proceed.
I said yesterday that the siting of the
hearings was largely related to where those who are expressing concern would
have the best access, and I believe that is still the case.
Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired.
House
Business
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker,
on House Business, I would like to announce that the Committee of Privileges
and Elections, which may have been scheduled to meet at another time, will be
called for 5 p.m. this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy government
House leader for that information.
Mr. Praznik: I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance
(Mr. Manness) that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and that this House
resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question to the House, I
believe the honourable member for Point Douglas would like a committee
change. Is that acceptable to the House?
[agreed]
Committee
Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for
Motion agreed to.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It appears that we have two members who would
like to make a nonpolitical statement.
Prior to putting the question to the House on going into Committee of
Supply, would there be leave to revert to Nonpolitical Statements, if you want
to call it that? [agreed]
Nonpolitical Statements
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Broadway, does he
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, it might
have passed unnoticed, but as a member of this Legislative Assembly and as a
member of the official opposition, I pay tribute to a humble and great person
by the name of Cesar Chavez who died peacefully in his sleep. He was a product of the Depression, being
born in
His father's finances were shattered by
the Depression and so the family members became migrant workers. He started organizing the poor labourers in
1952 and 10 years later he organized what became known as the United Farm
Workers Union. Cesar Chavez achieved
international recognition when they struck and he led a boycott for five years
against the grape growers in the San Joaquin valley in
Mr. Speaker, this person attracted
attention to his cause by means of fasting.
He fasted three times, the last one being 36 days having only water,
resulting, according to the doctor, with damage to his kidney.
Let me pay tribute to this great person
and say with Tommy
* * *
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Radisson have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to make a nonpolitical statement to recognize the national day of mourning
for workers who are killed and injured on the job.
Today is an important day to recognize
that there are millions of work injuries in
These deaths often go unreported and
uncompensated, and I think that it is serious for all of us to consider, as our
work environments change due to technology, that we keep pace with those
changes and recognize the new injuries and the new illnesses that are resulting
from our increased use of chemicals and technology in the workplace.
I would urge us all to give special
recognition to those in
* (1420)
Committee
Changes
Mr. Speaker: The honourable member for Gimli, with his
committee changes.
Mr. Edward Helwer
(Gimli): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections be amended as follows:
the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for
Motion agreed to.
House
Business
Mr. Speaker: Prior to putting the question to go into
Supply, I believe we would have to call on the deputy government House leader
for a little bit of clarification. The
honourable deputy government House leader, under House Business, had informed
the House that we would be going into a Committee of Privileges and Elections,
but I believe the honourable deputy government House leader would need leave of
the House for that committee to sit while the House is sitting.
Therefore, we will ascertain whether or
not there is leave for P and E to sit while the House is sitting. [agreed]
That being agreed, I would also have to
ask the deputy government House leader, at this point in time, you did not
indicate any location for the said P and E committee and the purpose of the
committee. I would simply advise the
honourable deputy government House leader, the only room we have available at
this point in time is Room 254.
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Deputy Government House Leader): I
believe, Mr. Speaker, that it will meet in Room 254 for the purposes of
considering The Freedom of Information Act and the requirements for a hearing.
Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable deputy
government House leader for that information.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY
Mr. Speaker: It has been moved by the honourable deputy
government House leader (Mr. Praznik), seconded by the honourable Minister of
Finance (Mr. Manness), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House
resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her
Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Family Services; and the honourable member for
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
FAMILY SERVICES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This afternoon this section of the
Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of Family Services.
When the committee last sat, it had been
considering item 1.(e)(7)(a) on page 55 of the Estimates book.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, during the review yesterday of the Social Services Advisory
Committee, the member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale) requested that I provide him
with a copy of the Social Services Advisory Committee procedures, and I am
pleased to table copies with the Chair today.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
We are discussing the work of the Agency
Relations Bureau, and in particular as it regards the service and funding
agreements that are being established with a number of the agencies, and more
particularly still, the process that was undertaken in deliberations between
the Department of Family Services and the
I guess the concern that we have is that,
while external agencies undertake these negotiations in good faith and
understand that we need to be clear, as a government, as a funder and as a
service provider, what funds are being expended for which services, it is
incumbent upon both parties to negotiate in good faith. That is a basic fundamental tenet of contract
negotiations, whether it is with social service agencies and the government or
the collective bargaining process as it is undertaken between management and
labour or any kind of transaction that requires two parties to deal with each
other.
I guess our concern is that in the case of
the Manitoba Foster Family Association, it would appear that somewhere in the
process, that good faith bargaining element was, if not broken, certainly
attenuated. It was not consistently put
together in good faith.
I would like to ask the minister what the
status was of the negotiations on January 11, 1993, when a draft Memorandum of
Agreement was established between the Department of Family Services and the
Manitoba Foster Family Association, in the sense of: What did the Department of Family Services or
the minister know about the financial situation facing this government at that
time?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member's
colleague asked this question yesterday, and we answered it yesterday. So it is contained in Hansard.
Ms. Barrett: Thank you very much. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, was this in the
afternoon session or the evening session that this was answered?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yesterday was so intense and exciting, I am
not sure whether it was the afternoon or the evening. I think it was the evening, though.
Ms. Barrett: Yes, I believe it was the evening session,
and that Hansard has not been made available to us at this time.
As I stated to the minister, I knew that I
might be going over ground that had been dealt with before. Forgive me, but the minister has also been
known on occasion to go over ground that he has gone over before. So if he would indulge me very briefly and
answer this question, I would appreciate it and the process can perhaps go on
more expeditiously.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, negotiations in that period of time
were in process, and decisions that were made later on overtook those
negotiations. As a result, when the
budget announcements were made, those negotiations, of course, were no longer
necessary.
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, can the minister tell
me if the
Mr. Gilleshammer: We sent a cautionary letter in the fall to
all of the agencies that we fund indicating the difficult budgetary
deliberations that we saw coming forward.
I anticipate that the Foster Family Association would have been included
in that, and staff are confirming that.
* (1430)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if in November of
1992 the Foster Family Association received this letter that all other external
agencies did, saying do not expect any increase and budget accordingly, then
can the minister explain why, on January 11, 1993, anywhere from six weeks to
two months later, the minister's department has instituted a draft Memorandum
of Agreement between the government of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I indicated that
negotiations and discussions were going on at the officials level. Subsequent to that, decisions were made
around the budget by government which overtook those events, and as a result,
we did have to make, as your Leader has acknowledged on a number of occasions,
some very difficult, difficult decisions.
One of those decisions had some impact on the rates, and another of
those decisions had an impact on the grant to the association. Again, I do not
know whether you want to pursue this further, but I can detail some of the
difficult decisions that we have had to make as government and talk about the
fact that this is not unique to
Governments across the land are in that
position where they have had to make budgetary decisions which have had a
tremendous impact on social services in those provinces. So I think I have answered the member's
questions, but if you want to have this amplified a little more, we can do so.
Ms. Barrett: I am sure that the minister will understand
my response when I say that that will absolutely, positively not be necessary.
I would, however, like to clarify, or ask
for clarification again back specifically to the Manitoba Foster Family
Association, where they received the letter saying, do not expect any increases
and perhaps expect decreases in November.
Six weeks or two months later, they had concluded negotiations or felt
that they had concluded negotiations with the minister's own department that it
very substantially differed from the information that was given to them in the
letter of November. There is no problem there as far as I am concerned.
The letter went out to all the agencies,
but Manitoba Foster Family Association was dealing in an individual manner with
the Department of Family Services so that is a legitimate process to this
point.
My concern is that both parties appeared
on January 11 to be dealing in good faith on the need to have a COLA clause in
the boiler plate contract with Manitoba Foster Family Association. Then something
happened in the next six weeks to make this, not only change, but to be a
withdrawal of funding entirely from the Foster Family Association and a
decrease in the support that was given to foster families themselves.
Surely the minister must have known most
if not all of the problems that he was facing in funding, as determined by
Treasury Board or however, what the figures were being defined in
November. Why is his department still
negotiating for a cost‑of‑living increase on January 11 if times
were so difficult? Again is it not
legitimate for the Manitoba Foster Family Association to take as bargaining in
good faith the January 11 document as superseding the November document?
Would the minister not agree that the
Manitoba Foster Family Association is well within its rights as an organization
to be very upset with what appears to be a complete abrogation of the tenets of
bargaining in good faith?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I have indicated before that I understand the
disappointment of the Foster Family Association. We did send the cautionary letter back in the
fall. Yes, at the officials' level,
there was discussion going on, but I have indicated subsequent to that
budgetary decisions were made which overtook those negotiations, and as a
result, we have made those announcements affecting their organization and those
rates.
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Could the minister give us some examples of
agencies that relate to the Agency Relations Bureau?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Maybe just a point of clarification, the
agencies that we fund do relate to the department within the branch of the
department that their activities normally respond to. I think the member understands that there
will be a group of them under Income Security, there will be a group of them
under child welfare, but some of the ones that we have agreements with are the
Children's Home of Winnipeg, Winnipeg Child and Family Services, the Westman
Women's Shelter, as some examples.
Mr. Martindale: I have the Report of the Provincial Auditor
to the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1992, and there
are some recommendations under the Department of Family Services regarding the
Society for Manitobans with Disabilities Inc.
I wonder if the minister could update the committee on the
recommendations and the status of action.
I note that most of them, it says either recommendation implemented or
recommendation being implemented. I
wonder if the minister could tell us if the department has finished
implementing the recommendations that were being worked on. I have a copy, if it would help.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, a number of the recommendations have
been implemented, and others are in process.
This would fall under the Rehab and Community Living area of our
department. Either I can address that
when we get to that section of the Estimates, or we could have that information
brought back for you the next day.
Mr. Martindale: I will come back to it under Rehabilitation
and Community Living.
* (1440)
Mrs. Sharon Carstairs
(Leader of the Second Opposition): Can the
minister tell us approximately how many contracts would be negotiated by this
particular branch in any given year? I
do not want an exact number. I mean, are
we talking 50 or 75 or 100?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We have about 50 contracts that are either
finalized or well on their way, and we have perhaps another 40 or 50 that we
will be working with.
Mrs.
Carstairs: Of that number, how many
were cancelled as a result of budgetary decisions to cut funding to external
agencies completely?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The one that was being negotiated was just
the one to the MFFA.
Mrs.
Carstairs: So there was no contract
in the past, for example, with agencies like the Manitoba Anti‑Poverty
Organization, or it had already been decided so early that this one was never
negotiated.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Two years ago we had no contracts with any of
the groups that we fund and work with, and we were not in negotiations with the
Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization.
Mrs. Carstairs: If I follow the Detailed Estimates on page
42, it says essentially, procedures and systems to ensure accountability of
external agencies receiving public funding. Does that mean that there are
certain agencies that receive public funding from this department for which
there are no contracts and therefore no technical accountability?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, when this
department was first formed some three, three and a half years ago, by
combining Income Security and Family Services at that time, there were no
contracts and no agreements, no documents in force. We have been working on service and funding
agreements for the last three years, and the concentration of the efforts have
certainly been with those organizations that deliver that front‑line
service, such as the Child and Family Services agencies.
The grants that were being made to
advocacy organizations had not been pursued with the same diligence as the ones
that provide that front‑line service.
Our intention is to have service and funding agreements with all of the
groups that get government funding, and we have concluded a number of
them. We still have more work to do in
that area.
Mrs. Carstairs: Was the breakdown based essentially on
dollars, that you decided first of all to tackle those ones which had the
largest dollar commitment from government and to leave in abeyance those that
had lesser dollar value?
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is partially true. The other thing, the other concern, was the
absolute critical work that was being done by a number of those agencies and
some of the others, where it was not as critical, the type of work that they
were doing, was going to be left until later.
Mrs. Carstairs: What evaluation process at all then did the
department, not just under this ministry, but under previous ministries have
into place to ensure that government money was being spent on the things that
the agency requested funding for?
Mr. Gilleshammer: In the past, before the service and funding
agreements were being put into place, the department would receive annual
reports. They would receive audit
reports. They would work at the
officials' level to examine the work that was being done. This certainly is a much more formal step, in
any case, the purchase of the service from outside agencies.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(e)(7)(a) Salaries.
Mr. Martindale: If it is appropriate, I would like to ask the
minister, what kind of analysis was done to decide which of the 56
organizations funding was terminated to?
I know that the minister's press release and his statements in the House
have repeatedly referred to advocacy as opposed to service.
When did the department suddenly decide
that advocacy was no longer appropriate?
It seems to me that these decisions were made for budgetary reasons and
that the word "advocacy" was just a smoke screen, especially when you
consider that many of these organizations were providing a service, if you
consider organizations like Manitoba Anti‑Poverty Organization, that were
providing both service to clients who came in their door as well as advocating
with various levels of government and other organizations as well. For example, Indian and Metis friendship
centres were providing many services in the area of recreation and healing
circles, et cetera. So why, all of a
sudden, did your department decide that advocacy was no longer a suitable
activity for externally funded agencies?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think you could probably research some
comments that I have made in previous years where we have made a distinction
between advocacy and service and have said in the past that services is the
primary responsibility of many of these organizations and should have the first
call on government dollars.
Let me say that the member is absolutely
right when he says that these are budgetary decisions, and not surprisingly
that is what the budget is all about. I
guess we need to be in a position where we do not have to make the decisions
that were made in
But budgetary decisions are made annually
by government, and governments across this country are faced with some very,
very difficult decisions. If the member
is suggesting that perhaps what we should be doing is cutting service providers
instead of advocacy groups, I do not agree with him.
We have to look at what the primary
service is that is being provided by the agencies that we fund. In my mind, that is the first call on the
resources that government has. Then we
look at some of the secondary responsibilities of these groups and make our
decisions accordingly.
Mr. Martindale: I certainly was not suggesting that you make
cuts to service organizations. I think
what these external agencies would like is a little more honesty from this
government or a little more clarity or calling a spade a spade and saying in
their press releases, we did this for budgetary reasons specifically to reduce
the deficit, rather than saying we are no longer going to fund advocacy
organizations, which I think is misleading, given the nature of the services to
the public that many of these organizations provided.
* (1450)
So I am just reiterating my original
question. I do not think we are going to
make any progress here. I think we will
have to agree to disagree. But I see the
minister wants to reply.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the member still has not answered the
question I asked him the first day, and that is: Where would you like to cut in Family
Services? You have now said you will not
cut advocacy groups, you will not cut service, you will not reassign any money.
These are the difficult decisions
governments have to make, and from the luxury of opposition, you can criticize
all of these decisions. But I am sure,
when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) made his announcement at a press
conference in his office about the 56 groups that were being funded by
government that were going to receive less funding or no funding, it was not, I
am sure, the issue of why we were doing it.
It was not being ducked.
The fact is, it is a budgetary decision,
that the downsizing of government, the reducing of grants is related to the
budget. We have to preserve what is most necessary, most valuable and make
these very tough decisions. As I said,
governments in all provinces are making decisions on expenditures, and they are
making decisions on what revenue generation they feel they can move to. These are the decisions we have made and were
supported by this Legislature in passing the budget.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(e)(7) Agency Relations Bureau (a) Salaries
$201,100‑‑pass; 1.(e)(7)(b) Other Expenditures $42,000‑‑pass.
2. Registration and Licensing Services (a)
Vital Statistics (1) Salaries $894,500.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I would
like just a clarification. Is this the
time when the minister would like to talk about the Post‑Adoption
Registry, or would you like to leave that to a later time?
Mr. Gilleshammer: It would be better if we covered it under
Child and Family Services and we had the appropriate staff here.
Mrs. Carstairs: Okay, that is fine. I have no difficulty with that at all.
Can the minister tell the committee when
the move to Dauphin is likely to take place or has that been put on permanent
hold?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, that is not easy to answer at this time
in that we are awaiting some decisions to be made on automating this particular
branch of government. I would have hoped
that those decisions would have been made by now, but it does involve a number
of other departments of government, and whereas a year ago I thought we had a
solution to that, some of those negotiations that have been taking place, I
think, between I, T & T and another government department have not
materialized to the point where we can say that we are proceeding with
that. So this whole idea of moving this
unit has been put on hold pending the resolution of that issue.
Mrs. Carstairs: I understand that one of the difficulties is
a technology difficulty, that in order to move this department to a location
such as Dauphin you would need to have major computer equipment and other
technological equipment. Has this
department purchased any of that equipment, or is this at this point still on
standby?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The answer is that we have not purchased
equipment that would be used in direct service.
There has been work done on a plan of what would be needed for
automation in this area.
Mrs. Carstairs: Of the number of certificates, and I think
they list some 33,000 registrations and 74,000 issuants of certificates, how
many of those would be given to people who literally come to an office and pick
them up?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Only a small portion, I am told, of the
requests are dealt with on a face‑to‑face basis, around 15
percent. A lot of the requests come in
by mail or by a telephone call.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell this Chamber if the
expected date of arrival in Dauphin has now been set, or is it anticipated that
this may be, if at any time, a 1994 endeavour?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am sure no target dates have been set, and
I am firm in my belief that it will not happen during this budget year.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
commend the staff at Vital Statistics for the excellent job that they do. It is one department I relate to. They license me. I have a certificate of registration to
solemnize marriages, No. 8187, and the staff there are always very co‑operative. In fact, they probably wish that people like
me were more co‑operative because I do not always mail in my registration
of marriage within 48 hours or whatever the limit is. I usually wait until Monday and then send it
interdepartmental mail.
I notice that on the bottom of my
certificate of registration that the acting director is M. J. Zyluk. Is that person still an acting director or
now the director?
Mr. Gilleshammer: She is the director, and she is the woman who
is seated at the table here with us.
Mr. Martindale: Well, I would just like to congratulate her
on being appointed director.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 2.(a) Vital Statistics (1) Salaries
$894,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $419,900‑‑pass.
2.(b) Residential Care Licensing (1)
Salaries $271,500.
Mrs. Carstairs: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in terms of
residential, I have had some communication with a Mrs. Lynn Clark, and I know
that the minister has as well. She was
making an application for establishing a seniors daycare. The director of Residential Care Licensing
quite correctly wrote and said that there was in fact no licensing process for
this particular type of facility that she was wanting to establish.
In fact, what she wanted to do was to open
basically a family daycare situation, but in this case, for seniors as opposed to
children with the idea that, as we have an aging population, people are going
to be looking at all kinds of alternative options available to seniors in the
community. Has the department given any
consideration to examining a need for such a facility at this point in time?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I think it is fair to say that this an issue
that is on the horizon. I noted in
Question Period one day that there was a group visiting that I believe the
Speaker introduced as a seniors daycare.
There have been some discussions within
the department, and I guess this would also involve some other departments as
well: the department of Seniors, the Department of Health. I would think it is an issue that is going to
gain more prominence as the need presents itself.
* (1500)
At the present time, we have had some
discussions, and I think that is probably as far as it has gone at this
time. I would think that if there is a
need there that develops, government will be certainly having to take a
leadership role in that as it turns into a business or it turns into a service,
and there would be a cost factor involved.
There would be some, I think, need for government to be concerned that
this is done appropriately.
Our Residential Care Licensing branch is
only responsible for residential care.
That is where, of course, people live within those facilities, but I
would see this as an emerging issue and one that I would be interested to see
what other provinces are doing at this time.
Mrs. Carstairs: The particular individual who made contact
with me is presently a licensed practical nurse working in a nursing home
situation. Her concern was that she can
technically go ahead and open such a facility now.
She did not want to do that without having
some set of guidelines available to her so that she would know that she was
doing it appropriately and with the interests of the particular seniors in
mind. She felt that there should be some
requirements for the space required in such a facility, the worker‑client
ratio as there is, for example, in a child daycare situation. Even the
establishment of fees might be an appropriate thing for the government to
establish, although she did not see, in her particular case, any need for the
government to provide funding. She was only interested in them establishing the
protocols, if you will, so that she could clearly say, this is the way it has
to be run so that they have this guarantee.
I hope that the minister, after the
Estimates process, will take this kind of request under consideration, because
I know now of at least three similar situations that have been established. I
have real concerns as to whether they are being monitored and whether they are
being properly run with appropriate protocols for those seniors that are in
their care.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member raises an excellent point, and I
can assure you that we will direct our attention to that. One of the situations that I am aware of is
seniors housing and personal care homes in my own constituency. I know, when there is programming at the
personal care home on certain days, that other members of the community are
brought there to participate in the programming and participate in the
entertainment.
I know that is not exactly what the member
is saying, but I think it is happening informally, probably not just in small
communities but all communities where there is a need to do some
socializing. What it is doing is putting
a bit of an extra burden on the staff at the personal care home. If the community is going to bring large
numbers of people out, of course, they are not adequately staffed. I know, in the care homes that I am aware of,
it has not become a problem yet.
Probably, it is a service they are providing that is good both for the
residents of the care home but also good for the community. Some of the wonderful programs that happen
around the Christmas season and other times of the year is just a great
reaching out to the community and partially takes care of the issue of day
programming.
Mrs. Carstairs: I think that what is in view here, though, is
people who would require that kind of programming every single day and not just
on special occasions. I think also the
minister might find that kind of thing is done more frequently in rural
communities than it is done in the city of
But into Residential Care Licensing
itself, can the minister tell us how many facilities this department is now
responsible for and how often they are inspected?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that we are responsible for the
licensing of 726 facilities, and they are inspected twice a year.
Mrs. Carstairs: I would like to just ask the minister how
that is possible with six staff; 726 facilities, two times a year, I mean,
rough arithmetic would be 1,452 by six staff.
How does that happen?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that the facilities fall into two
categories: The licensed, there are 233
facilities, and for 493 of them, they have a letter of approval. The first group is inspected by the six staff
that the member references. The other
493 are the responsibility of our regional offices, and we have regional staff
members who do that.
Mrs. Carstairs: That makes me feel a little better.
That is interesting because I asked that
question some years ago and I never could get an explanation for exactly how
these inspections were conducted. I
thank the minister for that.
In terms of this particular unit, I have
just one comment I want to make. That is
that I have had, over the years that I have been around here, three or four
complaints. I have always gone to this
particular branch. They have always
taken the issue seriously, and they have conducted the appropriate inspection
and have always reported back to me. I
want to congratulate them because I think they are not particularly a well‑heralded
branch of this particular department.
Mr. Martindale: Part of the expected results of Residential
Care Licensing is the processing of approximately 15 to 20 new applications for
licenses. I would be interested in
knowing where the residents come from into newly licensed facilities. Are they
coming from institutions or from homes in the community or‑‑where
are they coming from?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Both of the above.
Mr. Martindale: Does this mean that the number of residents
who in the past have been in institutions are continuing to decline?
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is a very small change in the numbers
we have in the institutions. The member
can well appreciate, when you deinstitutionalize, you take those who are most
ready to move into the community, and as a result, it is more difficult to
deinstitutionalize those who are presently there.
At the same time, we do have other clients
that, for whatever reason, are moved into institutions as well. So our numbers at places like St. Amant and
Pelican Lake Training Centre and the Developmental Centre in
* (1510)
Mr. Martindale: Is there a goal of putting more people into
the community, or is that an ongoing goal of residential care licensing? What is the objective? Is it to maintain the status quo or to shift
the balance? Where are we at in that?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, it is a goal to move more people into
the community, but there is a balance there, too. The other factor is aging caregivers, whether
it be parents or family, and the fact that there is a need at various times for
people to leave their current circumstances and go into a group home or an
institution. So there is always a
balance there and each of those cases has to be judged on their individual merits.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 2.(b) Residential Care Licensing (1) Salaries
$271,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $27,300‑‑pass.
Resolution 9.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,613,200 for Family Services, Registration and Licensing Services,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
We will now move on to 3. Income Security
and Regional Operations. Provides
financial assistance to Manitobans in need and the field resources to deliver a
range of social services programs.
3.(a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries
$1,073,300.
The honourable minister to introduce his
staff.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am sorry I have not been paying more
attention to this, but I would like to introduce the staff who have joined us
here. Doug Sexsmith is the assistant
deputy minister of Income Security. Joan
Roch is part of the senior management of this particular branch of the
department, and Kim Sharman maybe was here before, but I do not think I introduced
her.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think I know what
the Central Directorate is. However, if
it is appropriate, I would like to begin asking a series of questions here
about social assistance if that is okay with the minister.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Rather than go line by line, you just want to
talk about social assistance.
Mr. Martindale: Well, my questions are about work incentives,
social assistance, 55 Plus, CRISP, HROC, et cetera.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the Income Supplements are (c) which is
the 55 Plus and CRISP.
Mr. Martindale: Okay, we will wait until (c) then.
Mr. Gilleshammer: It does not matter to me if you want to just
go generally.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I had occasion to
talk to several people who were wanting to take advantage of the work incentives,
since they were on, I believe, provincial social assistance.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
My understanding of the current program is
that recipients can earn up to $50 a month under the work incentive, and they
can actually earn more than that, but after the $50 a month, it is deducted
dollar for dollar.
I also learned from talking to several
individuals something I did not know before, and that is that people who are
considered self‑employed do not qualify for some of the benefits under
the work incentive program.
I was particularly surprised to learn that
if one works as an enumerator for Elections Canada, you receive compensation,
but you cannot keep more than the $50 a month and, I believe, are ineligible
for some benefits because it is considered self‑employment. So I have a number of questions around that.
First of all, why would working for Elections Canada be considered self‑employment?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would like to go back further and talk
about the work incentive program because some of the information the member put
on the record is not correct, and I think, if we can give you a better
understanding of the work incentive program, it may clear up some of these
things.
You are right that the work incentive
program is designed to increase the employment incentive for long‑term
social allowance recipients. They are
included in the work incentive program if they have been enrolled 30 days or
longer and if their source of earned income is not self‑employment. Self‑employed persons include those
with an independent livelihood, and we can come back to that later.
Eligibility for assistance was granted as
a sole‑support parent, senior citizen, disabled person or a general
assistance case. The point that I wanted
to make with the member is that recipients on the work incentive program are
allowed to keep a portion of their earnings representing the greater of $50 per
month, 70 cents for each hour worked or 30 percent of gross monthly earnings.
I point out to the member, it is the
greater of those. I think that in
essence contradicts what the member said in the first part of his preamble.
Mr. Martindale: I was aware of the 70 cents an hour, 30
percent of gross. Could the minister
explain why some kinds of employment are deemed self‑employment,
particularly enumerating for Elections Canada?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Our definition of self‑employment would
be a small‑business man, farmers, fishermen, trappers. The example that the member gives is not an
example of self‑employment. We are
not aware of dealing with it in those terms, and we would be pleased to review
that.
Mr. Martindale: I understand the minister has agreed to
review it. I appreciate that offer. I have been looking at statistics for 55 Plus
and CRISP and notice that every year there are, I believe, both fewer people
and less money going into 55 Plus and CRISP.
I understand that these are targeted programs and that people need to
apply in order to get the money. It does
not come automatically.
My concern is the take‑up rate, and
I wonder, first of all, if the department knows approximately what the take‑up
rate is. For example, are 75 percent of those who are eligible participating in
these programs, or is it more or is it less? Does the department have any idea
what the take‑up rate is?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we have some statistics that we can give
you on the people who are accessing that program.
What is happening, though, particularly
with the 55 Plus program, is that you have a population now that is accessing
more benefits that were not in place when this program was designed back, I
think, in the 1970s. As a result of
enhanced pension plans, as a result of CPP kicking in‑‑I see my
colleague, the former critic, has arrived with her newspaper readings‑‑as
a result of changes in the circumstances of an aging population, they are no
longer eligible and no longer require that program.
But I can tell you that the caseload
probably is stabilizing in both the senior component and the junior component. The estimated caseload for '92‑93 is
slightly higher for the senior component than it was last year; similarly, the
caseload for the junior component, we are estimating at slightly higher. So that reduction that we have seen from,
say, the mid‑'80s, a significant reduction in particularly the senior
component, has probably stabilized around the 14,000 or 15,000 number.
The CRISP caseload has also levelled
off. We are anticipating about 7,535
cases this coming year, which is very similar to last year. The advertising that we do for these income
supplements has not changed in terms of making the information available, and
again, the changes probably reflect the fact, particulary with the 55 Plus,
that those people are accessing more income from other sources.
* (1520)
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister have any estimates of the
take‑up rate for 55 Plus and CRISP, that is, the number of people who are
accessing the program as, say, a percentage of those who are estimated to be
eligible?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am told that for the senior component of 55
Plus, the information is taken off the federal information of the Guaranteed
Income Supplement, so we are reasonably sure we have 100 percent take‑up
with that senior component.
Now, with the junior component, we do not
have any statistics about the numbers who might be eligible who are not
applying.
Mr. Martindale: Does the minister have any data on take‑up
rates for CRISP?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, we do not have information on that.
Mr. Martindale: I have a suggestion and a question. The suggestion is that you talk to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) and see if the income tax return can be
programmed so that people who fall below a certain income level could be
notified on their return, when they get their refund cheque or notice of taxes
owing, saying, based on your income information, you may be eligible for 55
Plus or you may be eligible for CRISP. I
have talked to a number of people who are familiar with computer programming
who have said that technically it would be possible to do that. I am wondering if the minister would offer to
talk to the Minister of Finance, or if your staff would talk to his staff and
see if that is a practical idea. I think
it is practical.
The reason I am suggesting it is that I
think, when I see a declining take‑up rate in CRISP, for example, because
it is not a universal program, because people have to learn about it in order
to apply and if you do not apply, you do not get it, I would like to see some
other method implemented so that many more people find out that they are
eligible. I am interested in knowing the
minister's response to this suggestion.
Mr. Gilleshammer: As I indicated yesterday at the end of the
Estimates process, the staff spend considerable time going through the dialogue
that has occurred here in the committee room to list the ideas and
recommendations that have been brought forward.
I am confident that at the end of the process, when we turn our attention
to that, that idea will be brought forward.
Mr. Martindale: Would the minister be willing to get back to
me on this particular idea and, indeed, on all the other things that the
minister has promised that his staff will follow up on? It is a good process. I am pleased to be aware that the minister
and his staff do this, but I am wondering if he could share the results with
both opposition critics.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say that we have followed up on
requests for information that I tabled today for the members and the
information that I tabled the other day, yesterday, for the members. If there is specific documentation that you
want, then we do provide that. As far as
reporting back on departmental activities after the Estimates, if there is
specific information that the member would like to follow up on, I would
encourage him to give me a call, and we will make an appointment and deal with
that.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if the Central
Directorate staff are involved with the Human Resources Opportunity Centres?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, in the past there has been that contact
between the staff that report up to the ADM.
The member is possibly aware that we have transferred our training
programs out of Family Services now to Education so that all of the training programs
that were in this department and some that were in Labour are now part of the
Education and Training department of government.
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I realize that
a number of programs were transferred out.
Was your department involved in the decision to close the Dauphin centre
before the transfer was made?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Those decisions were budget decisions, and
the staff that worked in that area of the department at that time reported up
through the process to senior staff, and the transfer of those was a subject of
discussions that have been going on for a fair length of time. I have spoken on a number of occasions, and I
think publicly as well, the need to be able to give more focus to the training
programs that are offered in this province rather than have them splintered
through a number of departments. Now
they are all going to be lodged within one department, the Department of
Education and Training.
Mr. Martindale: I think the focus in Education and Training
probably makes sense. I guess I was
asking for clarification so that I know whether we should ask our questions
here or in Education and Training Estimates.
I would not want our critic to enter Education and Training and ask
questions about the closure of the Dauphin centre and find out that their
minister was not involved in the decision to do it. So I think it is probably best to ask the
questions here.
Could the minister tell us what the
rationale was and what analysis or studies were done before the decision was
made to close the Dauphin centre?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, certainly the
staff that were part of the training programs are the staff that have been
transferred to the Department of Education, but I do not mind answering
questions on the training programs. It
was, again, a budgetary decision where we, as your Leader has said, had to make
some very, very tough decisions to do some downsizing within government. The previous year, as the member is aware, we
made a decision on one of the training centres in Selkirk, and this year there
was a decision to close the Dauphin centre.
We are aware that there are some other
training opportunities that are available in Dauphin through some Distance Ed
and through
* (1530)
Mr. Martindale: Well, I specifically asked the minister if
there was an analysis or a study made before the decision to close the centre
was taken. In his reply the minister
talks about discussions, so I would like to repeat the question and ask the
minister: Was there an analysis or study
taken of whether or not to close the centre, what the pros and cons are, or
were, and if so, what did that analysis show?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, part of those discussions, of course,
that take place within this branch of government discuss the services that were
available and analyze those services and requirements. One of the decisions we had to make was that
we would downsize this area of the department and, as part of the transfer,
focus that training within the Department of Education and Training to provide
training options in that particular area.
Mr. Martindale: This feels like Question Period because, once
again, the minister did not answer my question.
A number of years ago, I had the
opportunity to tour the King Edward Human Resource Opportunity Centre when Mr.
Evans was the minister for Income Security, and it was a very informative and
worthwhile tour and‑‑would the minister prefer that I said the
member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans)?
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, I do not want to put words‑‑I
was just wondering aloud here which Mr. Evans that was, and that is fine.
Mr. Martindale: One of the things that I learned on the tour,
in answer to a question, was the number of people who were employed six months
after they took the training. If memory
serves me correctly, I believe about 62 percent of the people were still
employed six months after they graduated from the Human Resource Opportunity
Centre.
I am wondering if the minister has
statistics on the Dauphin centre, and if so, what they are.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have
general statistics on the programming that was offered through this area of the
department, and they would indicate probably an across‑the‑board 50
percent success rate in people accessing long‑term employment. We have tried to analyze what is the most
appropriate type of training to offer those who have certain disadvantages in
accessing skills within the labour market and have to try and make a decision
where the best place to spend our money is.
So now that the programs are a part of
Education and Training, I think that the staff in that department will have to
make some determination of where the dollars can be spent in the best possible
way, knowing that there has to be various levels of training to accommodate people
who are unemployed and who have very weak educational skills.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I too have visited some of the centres in
I think, as the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) and the Department of Education look at this broad spectrum of
people that they have to serve and this continuum of service, they have to make
decisions within there to decide where the dollars are best placed, but knowing
that they will have to serve all manner of people who are seeking training and
retraining in Education.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us the relative success
rate of the Dauphin centre compared to other centres? It seems to me that if they had a very low
rate of job placement after training, that might be a rationale for closing it,
but unless we know how Dauphin compares, we do not have any way of evaluating
whether the government made a wise choice or not.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, the success rate of the various HROCs
were relatively similar, and that tended to vary from class to class. What the department did was a three‑month
follow‑up survey of clients after they have left the programming that
indicated, for instance, in 1990‑91 that of those clients, 35 percent
were employed either full time or part time, and an additional 15 percent
enrolled in further training or education and upgrading, for an overall impact
rate of about 50 percent.
This tended to vary from year to year
based on the skills that the class brought forward and the client group that
was being served. We also had to look at
the other services that were able to be offered through other community groups
in that area, so again, a very difficult decision to downsize in this area, but
there was a feeling that there were services that could be offered by other
groups within that community and services that could be offered from the City
of Brandon.
Mr. Martindale: I believe it was the Minister of Education
(Mrs. Vodrey) who defended the government's policy in the House. If I am wrong, correct me. I believe that the rationale that was used
was that clients could go to
For example, what are these individuals
supposed to do? Are they supposed to
commute to
Mr. Gilleshammer: The HROP staff, which is the programming
staff, will be able to serve clients in the Dauphin area. The HROC, which is the centre, is located in
Mr. Martindale: Would the client be given any assistance in
moving to Brandon or The Pas?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Clients will be able to access whatever
resources are available through the current programming. We have not set up any special fund to do
that.
Mr. Martindale: Can the minister tell us what he means by accessing
funds available through current programming?
Is he talking about the $150 a year special needs fund, or what is he
referring to?
* (1540)
Mr. Gilleshammer: I am referring to any of the regulations that
we have that apply to social allowance recipients. There are times when they do relocate, as the
member knows, and there may be certain funds that they may be able to access
that in some way would assist them.
Mrs. Carstairs: According to the Activity Identification of
Central Directorate, one of their activities is to provide policy direction and
program analysis.
Can the minister tell us just what kind of
program analysis has been done in areas such as student social allowance or the
use of food banks?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I will address the food bank issue
first. The assistant deputy minister and
I recently visited Winnipeg Harvest when they relocated into their new
facilities and had an opportunity to spend the better part of an hour visiting
with the director of Winnipeg Harvest and gathering information on any of the
statistics that they would share with us.
There is information that Winnipeg
Harvest, as the member maybe is aware, will not share in terms of the number of
locations that they service here in
What they did share with us was names and
phone numbers of community groups outside the city of
As far as information on student social
allowances, we do have up‑to‑date information on the caseload. We do have up‑to‑date information
on the area of the province that they come from and we do have information on
some of the profiles and backgrounds that exist on those particular cases.
Mrs. Carstairs: Presumably Winnipeg Harvest shared with the
minister the statistic that between March '92 and March '93, the number of
people per month went from 17,126 to 32,767, a 91 percent increase, and that
the percentage of those people on social assistance, either city or province,
was 82.5, which leads one to believe that someone should be doing some analysis
as to why 82.5 percent of social assistance recipients are turning to food
banks. Can the minister tell us if any
of that kind of analysis has been done by the Central Directorate?
Mr. Gilleshammer: The analysis that we do is an analysis of
rates, and we do an analysis of the rates that we have in
I would say that the food banks have
provided an alternative for recipients to supplement their food needs and allow
them more flexibility with the disposal of the funding that they get. The information that is provided to us by
Winnipeg Harvest, of course, we have to accept it at face value. We have no other statistics to compare them
to.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am pleased to hear the minister uses other
provinces as his basis of comparison because one of the statistics that the government
likes to deny is the fact that Manitoba has the highest poverty rate in the
country done by a comparison with those same other provinces with whom
apparently he is quite prepared to be compared to with regard to assistance
rates. Has this department done any
analysis as to the reasons for the high poverty rate in the province of
Manitoba, and what relationship that has to the proliferation of people turning
to food banks to supplement their diet?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, we do certainly compare ourselves to
other provinces. The rates are an easy
comparison to make because that is a fixed target. The rate for social assistance in
So we look at those comparisons and say,
well,
So if our incidence is low and our rates
are comparable, then we have to ask: Why
does Statistics Canada indicate that we have the highest poverty rate? Well, one of the things that Statistics
Canada does is take cities of 500,000 or more and lumps them in together so the
rate that is set for that poverty line is set in places like
* (1550)
By saying that, I am not denying that
there is poverty. I am not denying that
part of that poverty affects children.
What I am saying is that poverty line perhaps does not reflect the
Now one other factor in
You know, I served on a panel not that long
ago with Chief Jerry Fontaine, where he made the same point that the native
people in
He makes the point that they are not only
overrepresented in hospitals and penal institutions and underrepresented in
higher education institutions, but they are also a high percentage of the
poverty figure that is factored into
These statistics can be misleading as they
are drawn by Statistics Canada. Without
indicating that there are issues here, I am saying that I think you have to
look at how these statistics are generated.
The current Statistics Canada measure of poverty, we believe, overstates
the amount of poverty in
These are all indicators that we look
at. Some of them we have more confidence
in, some of them are easier to make direct comparisons, but for sure we are
concerned with our rates. This is one of
the reasons that we have been able to bring in a number of enhancements over
the last few years, which I referenced yesterday.
Mrs. Carstairs: There are two points that I would like to
make, and then I will ask a question.
One, of course, is that we are also lumped in with
Mr. Gilleshammer: Can I just respond to that? On the first point, the cost of living in
those other provinces, we believe, is higher than the rate in
Mrs. Carstairs: Yes, but it is fair to say that the high
unemployment rate is even higher in reserve populations than it is in urban
populations.
In terms, however, of the food bank usage,
it has doubled in the past year. That
has to be of concern to this particular department that so many are turning to
the food bank to supply their food.
Surely some analysis has been done in the department as to why these
individuals cannot live on what has, by the department's estimation, presumably
been adequate amounts of money from social assistance.
Mr. Gilleshammer: There is no question that the rates are one
of the reasons for the usage of food banks in that it does mean that clients
can free up some of that income to become more disposable income in other areas
and that they can use their food money to purchase other goods or
services. I would indicate one of the
things that our research has shown is that the usage now seems to be spread
equally among municipal assistance clients, provincial clients and what we call
the underemployed or other low‑income people. There are individuals other than recipients
who are accessing the food bank. I know
the member would be aware of that.
I think it also points out the fact that,
more and more, some of the community groups are feeling that they would like to
take a part in tackling what is seen as a community problem. Service clubs, churches and other community
groups, as part of what they perceive to be their mandate, are getting more and
more involved in some of the poverty issues that exist out there.
I would say again that we do compare our
rates to other jurisdictions. We know
that
Government, unfortunately, has limitations
in this day and age as to how much more it can expend in this area. Again, I will not go into the pressures we
have because of the deficit and the debt, but clearly we are making decisions
within this budget that will be able to preserve programmings in Health,
Education and Family Services where we do not have to take the route that some
other provinces have taken. I readily
admit that we will have to monitor the incidence of social allowance. We will have to monitor our rates and make
the adjustments as we are able to do so.
Mrs. Carstairs: I am surprised at the minister's comments.
Maybe he does not have the same statistics that I have, because he seemed to
imply that somehow or other the people going to food banks were split‑‑he
did not say equal; I admit that‑‑among those on social assistance
and those who were working, the so‑called, sometimes referred to, working
poor.
However, the Winnipeg Harvest statistics
will show that those who are working, their rate of usage of food banks has
declined and the rate of people on social assistance has increased. They show in March of '92 that 78.7 percent
of the people using food banks were on some form of social assistance and 21.3
had some form of work. A year later,
that had gone up to 82.5 for those on social assistance and had declined to
17.5 for those who were working.
That concerns me and I would have thought
concerned the department, because there seems to be a real trend here. More and more people on social assistance are
looking toward the food bank to supplement.
I am somewhat surprised that the
government was not involved in some kind of analysis to discover why. Is it just because this is a way to
supplement? Is it because clients actually
feel they have inadequate amounts of money on social assistance? I do not know what the answer is, but I would
assume that that was the function of this directorate when it was supposed to
be doing this kind of analysis.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I can assure you that we do this kind
of analysis and the clients who are accessing the food bank are probably‑‑if
they are now measured as part of the client base as opposed to the working poor‑‑may
well be one and the same person. As
people who were working at low‑level jobs have lost their positions and
moved onto social assistance, they have continued the usage and the call on the
food banks.
* (1600)
We accept whatever statistics that
Winnipeg Harvest will provide us. We are
aware of some of the broad numbers that the director of that food bank makes
available in the press, but by and large it is difficult to get into a detailed
analysis of the people who access that because that information is not made
available to us. But we have had an
opportunity on a regular basis to meet with the director who, in broad terms,
brings us up to date on their activities.
We have not been made aware of all of the sights, for instance, where
there are drop‑offs for some of the products from the food bank.
It was only about a year ago that I was
made aware that a small number of daycares were used as a drop‑off and
distribution centre by Winnipeg Harvest.
The names of those are not given to us.
I suspect they are inner‑city ones, but I respect their desire to
have privacy on that matter, and we have not done any sort of investigation to
further intrude on their business.
Mrs. Carstairs: Can the minister tell me what kind of
analysis was done by this Central Directorate with regard to their anticipated
costs involved in those who would go off a student social allowances program
and go on straight social assistance?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are aware that at the beginning of the
school year, there were in the neighbourhood of 1,600 individuals, students,
who were drawing on this program. At the
present time, that is down to 1,100.
Those students are still in the system until the end of June unless they
cease attending in the meantime.
We know, as I indicated yesterday, that
there are a number of options that are in front of them. Some will seek part‑time employment and
attend school on a part‑time basis come September; some will seek and
find full‑time employment and attend night school or receive education by
correspondence; some will receive some on‑the‑job training; some
will return home and rely on family support to continue their education; some
will explore the mature student status at the post‑secondary level; and
others will take the GED test.
So those students are currently in the
process of making decisions on their future whether it is to continue till the
end of this school year and make decisions for next year.
We know that our budget in this area, I
believe, was $4.5 million and that a portion of that may well become a cost to
government through the social allowance program, but we have not been able to
refine that to give a real figure that we are completely comfortable with.
The majority of the students that we are
talking about, of course, 95 percent of this group are in high school studies.
There are school divisions that have mature student programs so that, for
instance, if a student had dropped out at the Grade 9 level, that they may
achieve their high school equivalency either through the GED process or through
programming that school divisions are able to implement to take a number of
credits and say, yes, you have achieved your high school equivalency.
Of the group, we know that 78 percent of
that caseload is in
Mrs. Carstairs: The minister, obviously with the help of this
department, made a decision to cut student social allowances‑‑1,600
people reduced to 1,200 people‑‑but in one point in any given
academic year, presumably up to 16 and at some time down to 11, but somewhere
in that range, were receiving social allowances in the way of a student social
allowance from the minister.
When the decision was made to cut the
program, did the minister seek advice as to how many of these people, in the
best advice of the Central Directorate, would now turn to the social assistance
system for support, and if he asked that question, which I would presume any
reasonable manager would ask, what was the answer he got?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We are aware of the fact that there are many,
many variables that are at play in trying to come up with a figure. We anticipate that the majority of these will
be able to either access the job market or continue their education by
accessing or making some of the decisions that I have referenced. I am reluctant to give a hard figure, because
we do not have the comfort level around that number that I would want before I
start using a figure. We know that of
the current caseload, we have some 400, for instance, who are living with
parents or relatives and anticipate that the majority of them will be able to
continue either their education or have the ability to access a job.
* (1610)
Again, the majority of these, as I have
indicated, are here in the city of
Mr. Martindale: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at the end of the
Third Session of the Legislature, we passed Bill 70, I believe it was, the
legislation that standardized social assistance rates. Now that that has taken effect, we can see
the results of that provincial government action. I believe there was an improvement for single
adult males on City of
However, many other people have suffered
losses of income, particularly families on city social assistance. They used to be eligible for CRISP; I believe
they have lost their CRISP. Some people
used to be eligible for 55 Plus; I am told that is gone May 1. Also, due to changes, there is almost no
exempt income which means that people have nothing to fall back on if they run
out of their social assistance. So what
happened was that whereas in the past the city benefits were more generous, due
to changes by this minister and his government that is no longer true.
Now I commend the City of Winnipeg
councillors and administration for negotiating with the federal government to
cost‑share under CAP some rates over and above the standardized
provincial rates, but there is one category that still concerns me, and I
commend the member for River Heights (Mrs. Carstairs) for raising this in
Question Period several times, and that has to do with the infant rates. I would like to begin with a question to see
if there is still a difference between the provincial rate for infants and the
City of
Mr. Gilleshammer: Let me just comment on some of the preamble
of the member who first referenced the CRISP program and the 55 Plus
program. The CRISP is the Child Related
Income Support Program. The purpose of that was to provide additional funding
for what we call the working poor. It
was not designed to be part of the social allowances program, and most
municipalities respected that decision.
Now we have standardized that and said this is what that program is for,
this is what it should be used for, and that was part of the decision that was
encompassed in Bill 70.
Exempt income, the member says there is no
exempt income. That is not correct.
There is exempt income in the federal transfer of what was called the
children's benefit. We have exempted
that. That was a decision that all
governments in
The GST is another one of the exemptions
that recipients receive, GST money. The
government regards that as exempted income, and it is not deducted from their
allotted sum.
There are a number of the tax credits
which are exempted income, so I know the member would not want to have on the
record a comment that said that we now have no exempt income because those
things in fact have not changed.
The member has raised a question about
some of the rates. Yes, the city is currently formulating their rates and I
think made it part of their budgetary decision to give higher rates in certain
areas of the social allowances program.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister tell us if there is still
a difference between the city rate for infants and the provincial rate for
infants?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, their rates for
children are different than the provincial rate, and it varies with the age of
the child.
Mr. Martindale: Could the minister read into the record the
rates for infants for food costs?
Mr. Gilleshammer: We do not have a breakdown of food
costs. It is part of the overall rate.
Mr. Martindale: I think the minister will recall the
questions in Question Period from the member for
I know the minister has received a brief
called Action Plan for Food Security for Manitobans, I believe written by the
Nutrition Network, in which they point out‑‑[interjection] The
Nutrition Network is made up of people who have expertise in nutrition,
including home economists and others.
One of their recommendations is to
increase social allowance rates to meet actual feeding costs of infants. I would like to ask the minister if that is
something he is willing to do. I think
this is one of the largest anomalies or differences between city rates and
provincial rates. This is an area that
Nutrition Network has drawn to our attention as critics. We believe it is a very important area that
could be and should be improved. I would
like to ask the minister if he has any plans to do that.
Mr. Gilleshammer: No, we have set the rates for the current
budget year. The member knows that we
have made mid‑year adjustments in a number of the enhancements that we have
brought in. I think I gave him the date
that we brought in such things as the head of the household, the liquid assets
exemption, the new supplement for the disabled.
There are times that we look at those enhancements, but we do annually
set the rates, and we have done that for the current budget year.
I would also point out a comment that I
made earlier. We do use Agriculture
Mr. Martindale: Will the minister agree to ask his staff to
examine the food allowance for infants and make improvements when the new rates
are announced? Normally, I think, new
rates are announced in the fall to take effect January 1, because it is my
understanding that there is still quite a gap and that the city rates are
considerably higher than the provincial.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Again, I would point out that Agriculture
Canada's food basket has what they call the thrifty food basket and the
nutritious food basket. We use those
statistics that come from Agriculture
I would agree with the member that this
branch of the department will, on an ongoing basis, monitor the trends that are
taking place across the country. We will
look at the rates in other provinces. We
will analyze information that is brought forward to us. It will not be long. We are almost into the fifth month of this
year to the point where we have to start thinking in terms of rate‑setting
for the next year.
* (1620)
Mr. Martindale: There is part of the analysis of rates that I
agree with. I have been following these
issues for quite a number of years now.
I am aware that, by and large, I think with the exception of infants,
the food rates do compare favourably with Agriculture
I think there is a problem here, and that
is that if you raise the rental allowance, there is always the danger that
landlords are going to capture that increased amount of rent that is available
to social assistance recipients without necessarily providing better
accommodation for people. We have seen
this kind of money grab on the part of landlords when City of
I would like to ask the minister if he
thinks that the rental allowance rates are adequate. If not, what could be done to improve the
rates without landlords capturing the extra revenue, but instead clients being
able to purchase better accommodation in the rental market?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I agree with the member for much of
what he said here. I think it is an area
that I have given direction to the department on very recently, that we take a
serious look at this. I think the city
is prepared to look at it as well, because I think what the member is saying is
that there is housing out there that recipients are going to live in, and the
market remains pretty stable no matter what the rates are, that it is still the
same area of the city, the same type of housing they live in.
It is an area that I think is, in some
ways, crying out for reform and one that I know, in the almost three years that
I have been here, we have not paid as much attention to as some of the other
rates and enhancements that we have brought into the program. I assure the member that it is an area that
we want to spend some time on in the next short while.
Mr. Martindale: The minister stated that organizations like
Winnipeg Harvest provide people an alternative and some flexibility with their
budget, which I think is one of the ways that food bank outlets are used. However, when the minister says that church
and community groups voluntarily want to help out with handing out free food
from Winnipeg Harvest and that they see it as their mandate, I would have to
disagree.
Perhaps there are organizations that
voluntarily want to do this as part of their mandate, but from my conversations
with many groups, it is not something that they want to do. It is something that they feel that they have
to do or are obliged to do out of a sense of either a Christian charity or
service, and it is because those people are showing up on their doorstep. Those
people are coming through their doors. They
are amongst the groups that lobby this minister to provide solutions which have
to do with justice, which have to do with redistributing income in our society
more fairly as opposed to charity solutions.
I have given examples of the inadequacy of
the charity solutions in speeches in the House.
I will repeat one of the examples, and that is that at North End
Community Ministry, the Sunday after Grey Cup Sunday last fall, what they had
to hand out from Winnipeg Harvest was bread, doughnuts, cakes that said
"Go Blue Bombers Go" and limes.
That is the kind of inadequate food that is available frequently. We know that the food that is available is
not the most nutritious. We know that it
is very high in starch and carbohydrates and sugar, that the largest bulk of
the food is bread and doughnuts and that canned goods are always in short
supply.
So I would have to say to the minister
that I do not think food banks are a solution to the problem of poverty, nor do
I think that groups are there always voluntarily handing out the food. They are there out of a sense of community
service or obligation, and they are the ones that are pushing alternatives to
food banks.
I am not sure that I have a question
resulting from that because I can anticipate what the minister's answer is, but
I will let the minister respond.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I do not mind responding even if there
was not a question. I think,
historically, churches and community groups have been there to help many of the
disadvantaged in society, and that is their historical mandate, or part of
their mandate.
I think what had happened during the '70s
and '80s particularly is that there were governments that said, listen, this is
government's responsibility. You can get
out of this work. You can get out of
this responsibility. You no longer have
to do this because we are going to fund organizations which do this. As a result, many of the groups that wanted
to be involved were in fact backed off by government who said government can do
it better.
Well, I think history has shown that the
government cannot do these things better and that many of these groups are more
than pleased to once again play this community role where they are pleased to
assist and help their fellow man.
I agree with the member that food banks
are not the answer. There are those who would argue, if the food bank
disappeared, that maybe the answer would be found sooner. I do not know. I know in Ontario, one of the solutions was
for the provincial government to start funding the food bank, and I think the
member indicated to me once last year that he did not agree with that solution
because what you were doing then was institutionalizing the food bank and
guaranteeing that they were going to be there forever, that all of a sudden it
became job creation and a mission for some and that the systemic problems were
not going to be solved, that the people were then going to be making more and
more demands on the food bank and expect more of the food bank.
So I do not think the Ontario solution is
the answer either, and it does seem to me, though, that once you create the
food banks, there is not a short‑term solution which is going to
eliminate them, but I do believe that others who were involved in Christian
charity or service feel that they want to be there and want to assist and that
they, as part of the community, will be part of the solution.
Mr. Martindale: Going back to some of the minister's previous
remarks, I would like to just correct my record and say that I acknowledge what
the minister said about exempt income with one observation. That is that GST is not really exempt income;
it is a rebate. It is government money
that is paid out to reimburse people for money that they have already
spent. So I do not really see it as
income; I see it as a rebate.
I have a couple of questions around
that. The first has to do with the
policy of your department and the staff, especially front‑line staff who,
when people approach them for emergency assistance, the staff apparently tell
people, well, use your GST rebate, use the child benefit. I would like to suggest that those monies are
for particular purposes. First of all,
the GST rebate is to reimburse people for money that they have already spent
out of pocket and, secondly, that the child benefit is intended to be spent on
children.
In fact, we phoned the federal government
office in
So I would like to ask the minister: What is your policy around instructions or
guidelines to staff on what they advise people to use the child benefit for,
particularly if it is for anything other than being spent on children?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the GST rebate is
exempted income. If you are going to
make that argument that the money that flows from the federal government or the
provincial government is an income, that is really their money, I mean you can
say that about any program, and I think the member is really splitting hairs. We regard the GST as exempted income, but it
is income that is put into the hands of the recipient.
* (1630)
One of the reasons we adjusted the liquid
asset exemptions is so that recipients would be able to accumulate money
through exempted sources or through whatever earnings and savings they were
able to have. So the social allowances
program is the program of last resort.
When people are asking for additional money, in dealing with them
because these are taxpayers' dollars that flow as social allowances and
exempted income, it is our responsibility to say: Well, do you have any other money that you
can use for special needs?
There are times when they do have other
money and they say, well, we choose not to spend it. Then they have a decision to make whether
that special need is significant and important and they do have the money and
they do not choose to spend it. So the
special needs is given out only on certain occasions.
Now, if the member is saying we should
monitor clients to be sure that all money is spent appropriately, then the
state, big brother, would have to go in and say, now be sure you spend this
much on clothing; be sure you spend this much on other supplies; be sure you
spend this much on food. I do not think
that is what the member wants us to do.
We are certainly not going to say, well, be sure you sit down and your
GST rebate is applied to purchases. This
is the money that you must spend for that, that the child benefit can only be
spent on certain things. I do not think
the member would want the government, the state, to be that intrusive and
dictate to people exactly what that money should be spent on.
From time to time we get letters from municipal
corporations who want us to give them authority to designate money for certain
things. We have landlords who want us to
pay the rent directly. We have other suppliers who want us to pay direct.
I think people who are accessing this
program of last resort have significant problems with their identity,
significant problems with their feelings of self‑worth. I think if government is going to pigeonhole
every dollar that they give to those recipients and say, you must spend it in
this way, we will be doing them a disservice.
So as a result recipients have flexibility
to spend whatever money they want on various things. When they want additional resources, we have
to ask them whether they have, as part of their liquid assets, enough money to
cover that before we will agree to say, well, this person has no liquid assets,
no other resources and, yes, they can have a special needs grant.
Mrs. Carstairs: I have several questions and several
comments. I think we are still on the Central Directorate or do we seem to be
moving away from that‑‑for just a minute? Is it this particular unit of this department
that deals with other departments in similar issues?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I have you speak into the mike?
Mrs. Carstairs: With respect, for example, to the infant and
the nutritional needs of an infant, would there be any co‑ordination
through the Central Directorate, for example, with the implications of poor
nutrition on future education prospects of that particular child?
Let me just let the minister know exactly
where I am coming from. When I first
realized there was this tremendous difference between what the province paid
for infants and what the city paid, I went to the city to say, why did you do
this?‑‑because it is so much higher that it was startling. I mean most of the other figures were a
dollar here, a dollar more, or a dollar less, but this one was a very dramatic
difference between the two figures.
They indicated to me that the reason they
had done that was because of the analysis that had been given to them on the
direct relationship between school performance and academic achievement and
nutrition, both prenatally and between birth and age one. That is why they had
set this particular rate. Would this be
the branch of government that would co‑ordinate that information, for
example, with the Department of Education and come up with a policy that would
reflect the needs of both departments?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I would say to the member that we do have
interdepartmental committees that work on a number of different aspects of
issues that cross departments. I know at
the ministerial level we have a committee that is composed of those ministries
that work in basically the social services area.
The deputy ministers, similarly, are part
of an envelope group in terms of budgeting where there is considerable
discussion about programs that cross over from one department to another. Similarly, at other levels of the department
there are staff who are in dialogue with departmental staff in other
departments.
At the same time, the Policy and Planning
branch, as well, do some dialogue with other departments on certain issues.
Certainly, within the Central Directorate here there is some sharing of
information with other departments.
Mrs. Carstairs: The other area that I think is one that needs
some co‑ordination between departments is the aspect of housing. I am
sure the minister in his previous life was aware of the fact that children
whose parents are social assistance recipients tend to move much more
frequently than children whose parents have steady incomes and are not social
assistance recipients.
In the city of
Is there any co‑ordination that is
done between this department and the Department of Education and the Department
of Housing with respect to how to initiate a policy that would try and keep
these children within one living arrangement for an academic school year?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I would quite frankly say that not
enough work and very little work is done in that area. I certainly acknowledge the problem.
I recall, almost 20 years ago, talking to
a staff member who moved from Minnedosa to work in an core‑area school
here. We had the opportunity to come in
for the SAG conferences in October, and already half of her class had turned
over once and that there was a constant revolving door with students who seemed
to come in for a very short period of time and then move to another school.
It reminded me of my first years of
teaching when we had a military base near Rivers and we had students who had
been educated all over the world‑‑gone to school in Germany, in
France, Ottawa and Alberta and, finally, in Manitoba. In that case, what a tremendous asset that
was to the school because they brought such different perspectives which had a
positive influence.
I am aware of what the member is saying
that with clients of this department who frequently move, it has to be very
upsetting for the children. It has to
affect their education, and the lack of that constancy in their life, I am
sure, has very much a detrimental effect on their ability to get a good
education.
* (1640)
That not only happens within the city of
Often when you get transfers in and you
say, well, there are four or five members of this family and they want to know
where they have been before. The same
thing spills over into the child welfare, and one of the reasons I spoke on the
importance of the SIS system there to track these people is because agencies
were going through the same thing, where the children were being reported in
six or seven different agencies in a very short period of time. Again, it is that transient population that
have the social problems that the child welfare agencies are involved with.
But we do have an interdepartmental
committee consisting of the Department of Education, the Department of Justice,
the Department of Health and the Department of Family Services which is looking
at special needs children and looking particularly at the report that the
trustees association, the business officials association and the
superintendents association tabled with government over a year ago.
Mrs. Carstairs: Just one final suggestion, and that is that
every now and then we look at a pilot project.
I have always thought it would be interesting to try a pilot project
with a group of maybe 20 children on social assistance to ensure, even by
bussing, that they remained in the same school for a given year and to evaluate
just what kind of effect that would have.
Now, obviously they would have to remain
in the same city. Many of these just move around within the core, but they move
from school to school to school. If somehow
or other we could try it to see if in fact this would have a change for the
better in terms of their academic success‑‑I think we move kids
around for French immersion and for Ukrainian bilingual and Hebrew bilingual
and all kinds of other programs, all of which I support. I think it might be interesting to try such a
program with some social assistance children.
Mr. Gilleshammer: That is a valid suggestion, and I will direct
staff to bring that up at the next meeting of the interdepartmental committee
and see if we can work towards that pilot perhaps for the next school year.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 3.(a) Central Directorate (1) Salaries
$1,073,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $694,400‑‑pass.
3.(b) Income Maintenance Programs (1)
Social Allowances $236,802,000.
Mr. Martindale: I would like to talk about one particular
group of recipients of social allowances, and that is sole‑support
parents and, in particular, sole‑support women, because we know that the
poverty rate for single‑parent women is climbing. It is approximately 60 percent now. The fact that it is increasing is known as
the feminization of poverty, so I have a number of questions on this.
First of all, can the minister tell us how
many cases we are talking about in terms of single‑parent families? I presume it is in the report under sole‑support
parents.
Mr. Gilleshammer: Yes, we are at about 12,500 in that
particular category. This is certainly a
target group that we had in mind when we made the change on the health card,
because you may have read, you know, the stories of some clients that find
their way into the newspaper or you may have knowledge of some clients whose
only reason for maintaining their eligibility for allowances is the fact that
they are a sole‑support parent, and that has given them some comfort and
assurance in life that they will remain at that level and continue to access
income without job expectations put on them.
I do feel that is a group that we must
encourage in every way possible to improve their training, improve their job
prospects and encourage them to find employment. I think it is pretty sad. I am trying to think of a case that was
referenced in the paper. I cannot tell
you the names and the circumstances, but it does not matter. Someone who was growing older and the last
child was turning 18 no longer would be eligible under that category. They would then be deemed to be employable
and would have to look to the municipal program for assistance. I think we have some 12,000 cases there that
we must make every effort to encourage them to get on to training programs and
find employment.
Mr. Martindale: I thank the minister for that answer.
I am wondering if the minister is willing
to treat this as a target group and if there is some way that either special
programs or special income can be provided.
I presume that we are not talking about a large number of families.
In fact, it would be helpful if the
minister could give us a breakdown, if he could tell us how many families we
are talking about here. The 12,500
surely must include a lot of children. Maybe we will start with the breakdown.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The number that I referenced, 12,500, is the
number of cases. The number here of
individuals who are on this would, of course, be greater. So in terms of sole‑support parents, we
have 12,500.
Mr. Martindale: Are there other ways in which this is a
target group besides being able to keep the health card that the minister
referred to?
Mr. Gilleshammer: I guess they are a target group in that it is
the group that we encourage in every way to find appropriate training and
education programs so that they can in fact get into the workforce.
We are very interested in the pilot
projects in
I know the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans) was promoting the workfare idea in the last session, and we know that is
not allowed by the Canadian Assistance Plan.
I think we have to find a way of using some of those dollars to in some
way encourage people to get into the workforce, to encourage the private sector
to create more jobs, if in fact they are able to do that, but I think there is
universal agreement that the status quo is not going to work as we participate
in, what appears to be in some areas, a jobless recovery. We have to help the private sector create
more of these jobs and find innovative ways of using those hundreds of millions
of dollars that the chairperson just referenced in this particular budget line
to have these people gainfully and meaningfully employed.
Mr. Martindale: I am very surprised to hear that the minister
thinks that the member for Brandon East believes in workfare. To the best of my knowledge, the New
Democratic Party has always been opposed to compulsory work for people on
social assistance. We have advocated more job creation, training and job
placements for people on social assistance, but as far as I know, it has always
been on a voluntary basis. So I guess I
will have to check the member's comments on the record and see what he actually
said, and see if the minister is accurate.
* (1650)
Mr. Gilleshammer: Certainly you should do that. I recall in Question Period last year
comments that he made in that direction, and I suspect even the NDP is changing
their thinking on that, because Premier Bob Rae has been on record in recent
weeks and recent months with saying that in Ontario, they can no longer afford
to pay people to sit at home. He is in
the same conundrum as we are in government, searching for new solutions. I
recognize that this is a major change in NDP policy in
I would be very interested in the member's
views or his colleague from Wellington who may have some ideas on how we can
make those changes. I am not sure
exactly what Bob Rae had in mind, and I know that other people are questioning
it, too. I would be willing to give the
member an opportunity to explain his comments, but I mean it is significant
that leaders, ministers, Premiers, Prime Ministers and Presidents are all
saying that the present system is not working, and we have to find a new way of
doing it.
Mr. Martindale: The one thing that we are sure of is that
this government has actually budgeted more money for people who are staying
home on social assistance instead of budgeting more money for job
creation. I think that the taxpayers
would rather see people employed, even if it means government money being spent
on job creation than budgeting more money every year for people to stay home
and collect social assistance.
I am sorry that I do not have the Senate
report on Children in Poverty here, but I remember much of what they said and
their recommendations. I believe it was
an all‑party report, and one of the things that they point out is that it
is more expensive in the long run to have children living in poverty than to
raise people's incomes in the short term.
They actually put a multibillion‑dollar figure on that because
they calculated the future costs of increased unemployment insurance, social
assistance, prison costs, et cetera. So
I think that we all have a monetary incentive as well as a social obligation to
help to lift families, particularly children, out of poverty.
I would like to ask this minister if there
is an attempt to co‑ordinate programs between the federal and provincial
level when it comes to job creation and training, particularly pre‑employment
training. The reason I ask is that there
was an excellent pre‑employment training program located on Selkirk
Avenue. I was a guest of the students
and staff there one day, and I had a chance to find out what they were doing
and how successful they were.
All of the students were placed in
employment situations. Some of them, for example, were in banks, and
regrettably, the funding for that program was withdrawn by Canada
Employment. One of the reasons was that
their success rate was not good enough. One of the reasons for that was that frequently,
after being in a job placement, the students decided that they would continue
in school rather than accept job offers which many of them had accepted. So, consequently, we saw that particular
centre, which was sponsored by R.B. Russell school, shut down, but other
organizations get funding to start up new pre‑employment training
programs.
I would like to know if this minister's
department is in dialogue with Canada Employment regarding employment training
programs.
Mr. Gilleshammer: The member talks about government job
creation. I recall just a few months ago
a major, major press conference held by the member for Brandon East (Mr.
Leonard Evans) and the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). After they got through their distortion of
the situation they were asked: What is
your solution?
One solution was to call a major
conference between government and labour and the private sector. That conference had just already been held,
and members of the New Democratic Party, of course, chose not to participate in
it, yet this is what they were calling for.
When pushed to say, well, what is your
next solution? It was the creation of a
Jobs Fund, and I remind the member that in the mid‑1980s, the government
of Howard Pawley spent hundreds of millions of dollars putting up these green
signs all over the province and not one lasting job remains‑‑not
one. In fact, what does remain is the
tremendous debt that we have to address in the budgets year after year after
year. So this is the solution of New
Democratic governments.
I remind the member that his Leader was
one of the most critical members of that Jobs Fund during the mid‑'80s. He criticized the Pawley government for the
exorbitant expenditure on signs and talked about hiring individuals and
students and people out of work to count flowers along the ditch, to paint
fences.
I remind him that not one lasting job has
remained from that. So the member is
simply talking about spending hundreds of millions of dollars more to transfer
these funds to people who need this assistance, and all you are going to do is
create a tremendous additional debt which has to be addressed down the line.
I have asked the member if he has looked
at what is happening in other provinces, and he has yet to acknowledge that the
reason they are hiking the sales tax in British Columbia is because of the debt
from previous years. He has not
acknowledged that the reason they are closing 52 hospitals in Saskatchewan is
because of expenditures in previous years.
We are fortunate here in Manitoba that we
are in a position to manage our finances at a much better level, where we can
do some reduction of programming without having to close schools and hospitals.
I was just in Vancouver meeting with my
western colleagues, and there are signs all over the city: Save Shaughnessy Hospital. I mean, that is a decision that the B.C.
government has had to make.
So this whole idea of simply dumping more
money into the system for job creation is not on. What we need to do is establish sustainable
jobs in the private sector, and the best way of doing that is to keep our
expenditures and our taxes down. We must
be sure that the sales tax does not rise.
We must be sure that personal income taxes do not go up. We must be sure that the corporations remain
healthy and create jobs here. Bob Rae
recognized that when he lowered the corporate tax in Ontario.
So there are not simple solutions to this,
but getting to the question about the co‑ordination of federal‑provincial
job creation, yes, the members of the province of Manitoba, members of this
government do relate to the federal programs‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour.
Committee rise.
HIGHWAYS
AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Highways and
Transportation. We are on item 5. Transportation
Policy and Research, page 91 of the Estimates manual.
Will the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): I would like to pick up where we left off
yesterday in the Estimates, Madam Chairperson.
I have this morning drawn to the
minister's attention by dropping off a copy of the CN press release that I had
promised that I would get to the minister to let him have a look at that
articulated hopper car that was under construction and has, I am informed, been
built in the Transcona Shops and has now been put into service on a test basis.
Can the minister advise, has he had any
communications with CN and CP to find out the purpose and the intent of
building these cars? Will he confirm
that there is indeed a competition that is ongoing and the possibility that one
of those two firms could build rail cars for potash transportation and possibly
maybe some of that work could come to Manitoba?
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Chairperson, before I respond
there, I had undertaken to supply certain information related to the transport
compliance statistics, which I think the critic from the Liberals asked for at
that time. I have copies for each one of
the critics on that. I also have the information
of the impact of regionalization on staffing which I want to present to both
critics, one for each, just in keeping with the tradition of trying to provide
information as best we can to the member.
Madam Chairperson: Shall item 5.(a) Salaries pass?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I like your attitude. I am impressed.
The member raised a question of the
articulated hopper car. The information I have here re the possible purchase of
new articulated hopper cars to haul potash, Canpotex of Saskatchewan is testing
two different types of hopper cars to determine their suitability to operate
efficiently within the Canpotex transportation system. A decision will be made after the tests
regarding the purchase and manufacturing of these cars. The two different cars are from the two major
railway companies. CN is using the
articulated hopper car designed and manufactured in Transcona. Canadian Pacific Railway is testing a tripack,
three solid hopper cars joined together.
The tests are currently being carried out and a decision will be made in
late summer. We will continue to monitor
this issue and will report any further developments as to whether we have a
role that we can play in terms of the manufacturing of that.
* (1430)
Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate‑‑and it
was one of the questions that I asked a few minutes ago‑‑whether or
not there is a possibility that some of that construction work by‑‑because
it is my understanding that those cars will be constructed by someone. Has the minister or his department had any
communication with the railways or by Canpotex, if they are involved in this,
to find out if that construction work for those rail cars, whoever the
successful party is, can have some of that work undertaken in the province of
Manitoba to create jobs in this province?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is why we are
monitoring, and it is our objective to see whether we can play a role to
somewhere along the line get that manufacturing to take place in
Mr. Reid: It is good to hear that the minister says he
is going to keep on top of it, or his staff will for him. Have we taken or done any correspondence or
made any communications with CN, CP, Canpotex or any of the other parties that
may be involved? Have we informed them of the interest of this government in
having that type of work come to Manitoba, and have we had any consultations to
determine what role we might play in that process?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, discussions are taking
place. We have nothing official on record that I can table in terms of
correspondence, but conferring with staff they have indicated that they are
checking into it and that we will be corresponding with the necessary parties
to see whether we can influence the decision to have some of that work take
place in Manitoba.
Mr. Reid: I would like to ask the minister this as a
request, and maybe he can indicate whether or not staff would be
available. Some of my colleagues are
interested in asking questions with respect to the highway construction and
maintenance programs, and I am wondering if any of the minister's staff would
be available this afternoon to answer some of those questions.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, my assistant deputy
minister of construction is not here. He
is tied up with a meeting because we had not anticipated doing that. I am flexible on that. The members can ask what they want, and if I
do not have the immediate information I will undertake to get it for you,
whether later today or whether it is at the next sitting when we deal with the
Estimates. So I am flexible in that
regard.
Mr. Reid: My colleagues have indicated that they think
it is important that the policy or advice that the minister would need should
be at his disposal, and in that sense we are prepared then to wait till
Thursday to ask those questions when we move to the Capital section.
Mr. Driedger: It would have been my intention to have my
assistant deputy minister responsible for construction to be here for the
Capital portion of the program anyway.
It is not that I am trying to keep him away. So if they have anything that they want to
put on the record at the present time for us to make sure that we have that, if
there is some particular information that we might not have immediately, if
they want to put it on the record, I will make very sure that we have the
necessary information at that time. But
on a general basis of what the program is, et cetera, then we can‑‑
An Honourable Member: Be very specific.
Mr. Driedger: Lots of it.
We will deal with it.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I look forward to asking those questions under
the capital portion of the Estimates.
I would like to turn my questions now to
an issue that has been seriously affecting a Manitoba construction firm, in the
sense that they build steel boats, tugs and ferries and they do repairing of
these pieces of equipment as well, and I am referring to the Riverton Boat
Works. Riverton Boat Works had
constructed a ship‑berthing tug under the agreement to upgrade the Port
of Churchill for the Canada Ports Corporation a number of years ago.
Since that time, of course, there have
been some difficulties that have been encountered by this firm to the point now
where they feel that they were not fully compensated for the work that they had
performed in the construction of this ship‑berthing tug and have since
had to declare bankruptcy, as a result of what they term lack of payment for
the expenses and the costs that they incurred in the performance of this
contract.
Can the minister provide any information
that would lend some support or provide us with some information that would
clarify why this firm has had to declare bankruptcy, since they, from my
understanding and looking at the file information on this, performed this
contract to the best of their abilities, and at no time have I seen any
information to the contrary?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I have in my office a file
about yay thick, meaning many inches thick, on the Riverton boat company. I have had meetings with them at various
times, tried to intervene on their behalf with the federal minister, discussed
it with Ports Canada, with the representatives of the board for Ports Canada
and asked them to appeal it at the political level to see whether we could get
consideration to get the thing resolved.
The member is probably aware of the
status, where it is at right now, where Riverton Boat Works have basically gone
broke, lost their property and a lot of assets, I suppose, and have been trying
to get some consideration through the federal Minister of Transport. I have personally raised the issue with the
federal Minister of Transport on a number of occasions, including by way of
correspondence, asking him to review the matter and see whether we could come
to some kind of resolve.
The federal minister continually maintains
that the matter is before the courts, and that he is not prepared to
intervene. I have asked consideration
from Ports Canada, talking to Mr. Tessier, who is the chairman of Ports Canada,
and including Mr. Bob Vandewater, and in checking on these things and asking
them to do a review, to maybe bring it up before Ports Canada to try and get
this matter resolved.
It is very complex. There is money owing on both sides. I know the agony of the individuals involved,
and we have been trying to do everything we can in terms of seeing if we could
help alleviate the problem. My
understanding is that the people from Ports Canada have at various times made
presentation on behalf of Riverton Boat Works to see whether something could be
resolved. The financial department
federally has indicated, because it is in the courts, that they are not
prepared to change their position.
Knowing the fact that Riverton Boat Works
does not have the financial wherewithal to take this thing to court properly,
it has been one frustrating experience after another for ourselves, as well as
for the people involved with Riverton Boat Works. In fact, just as late as within the last 10
days, I met with staff to discuss it further again, and what we have done now
is taken and turned it over to our legal people to give us an interpretation of
whether there is a legal position that can be, well, asking it from our people
to give us some advice as to whether there is some way that this thing can be
resolved.
That is the status in a nutshell of what
has happened there. Endless communications and conversations have taken place
on this issue and it is something that we would have liked to have resolved,
certainly, going back to when the initial agreement was made, when this
contract was let and the specs were not proper. The individual that built the
company that built the boat and had to change the specs had to take the unit
apart and to haul it down because there had been‑‑whose fault it is
really is a matter of question, I suppose, whether the company itself should
have been more cognizant of what was involved in terms of moving the unit down
there, because they assembled the whole thing here and then found out they
could not ship it on the rail line down there.
As a result, they had to disassemble it and then take it out there
again, and some of the specs that were changed on it. It is a long, complex
story.
One thing I just want to assure the member
is that‑‑and I have met with members of the opposition as well when
they have come in with the individual to discuss it‑‑his colleague
from Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) as well as the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman)
were in my office when we discussed this at times. I have always indicated our willingness to
see whether we could help resolve it and that commitment is still there. We will see what comes forward from our legal
department in terms of what‑‑is there a possibility that this thing
can be pursued further or not, knowing the financial difficulty that the
individuals have. What we would try and do is give them some advice.
I have tried the political route, which
has not been successful, and so now, we are trying to establish whether there
is a legal way that it can be done.
Mr. Reid: I think it can send an important signal to
Manitoba firms that may wish to bid on other contracts, whether they be
provincial or federal, in the future, that where there is a firm in the
province that appears to have been unjustly treated for whatever reason that
the government of the province defends the interest of those particular businesses
that have been either maligned or mistreated by others, including the federal
government and/or its agencies.
This firm has sent just recently, the
Riverton Boat Works has sent another letter to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) dated
March 24, 1993, and it is without prejudice, so this is trying to open up the
lines of communication to involve the Premier as well. This firm, from my understanding, very much
wants to settle this matter out of court.
They do not want to pursue it through the courts if they can resolve
this matter out of the courts.
Yet, it appears to me, at least, from my
reading of the information that the federal government and Ports Canada want to
drive this issue to the courts to tie the hands of the provincial government
and any other advocates that may wish to act on behalf of this firm.
* (1440)
Has the Premier been notified of the
contents of the minister's extensive file?
Has he taken a position and has he taken the opportunity to contact
either the federal Minister of Transport and/or the Prime Minister or his staff
to find out whether or not this matter can be resolved outside of the courts so
that we can once and for all bring some stability back into the lives of the
people that own the Riverton Boat Works?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is exactly what I was
telling the member, that we have worked at this thing from every angle that we
conceivably can, including the political route, including trying to influence
the federal Minister of Transport to sit down and see if this can be
resolved. Obviously, from the federal
Finance department, they are very adamant about it so that is why we were
trying the political route.
I do not want to allow the member to leave
the wrong impression that if anybody deals with the federal government, they
cannot do successful business with them, because this is one of the things that
we are pushing for is to allow Manitoba manufacturers and industries to be
involved in a lot of the business that basically comes out of the federal
government.
So the fact that we have a specific,
unique situation before us here which we are desperately trying to resolve
should not deter our people in Manitoba, our companies, to say that they
cannot, they should not do business with the federal government. I would never
want to leave that impression. I
encourage them to do business with them wherever possible.
However, this is a very unique situation
that developed before my time, in terms of having the contract under the‑‑was
it the ERDA agreement?‑‑Canada‑Manitoba subsidiary
agreement. That is where this whole
thing has been resolved from.
The member asks whether I have been in
touch with the federal minister and I replied, by writing.
An Honourable Member: The Premier?
Mr. Driedger: The Premier (Mr. Filmon) has been aware. We have briefed the Premier as to what is
going on. He is well aware of the
circumstances, has encouraged the activities that we have tried to undertake
from my department's perspective to try and assist this individual. We are, like I say, still at it. We are waiting for legal opinion. We will take further action on that.
I might add that at one stage of the game,
the federal Minister of Transport said that if Riverton Boat Works will
withdraw their court action, that he might be prepared to sit down and talk
with them.
My discussion with the Riverton Boat
Works, I do not know, I am trying to recall whether I encouraged it or
not. I encouraged that maybe that is the
route to go. However, once they withdraw
the court action, then they are pretty well at the mercy of the federal
Minister of Transport. They have some
reservations on that.
We have looked at this from every angle
possible and I continue to do so. That is
why we are trying to get a legal opinion from our government legal beagles, and
if there is some avenue that we can look at through there to help address the
situation, we will follow it through.
Mr. Reid: I do not mean to say that the Minister of
Transport is ineffective on this, because that is not my intent, but when we
run across matters with this seriousness, I think it is important that the
Leader of the province‑‑I am talking about the Premier (Mr. Filmon)
here‑‑play some type of a role to protect the welfare and the
interests of the citizens of the province as is his or her responsibility,
whoever happens to be in that office.
That is why I asked that possibly the
Premier could take some role in this to find out‑‑even if he
attempted by sending a letter to the Prime Minister asking that this matter be
resolved and that the parties can sit down, even in a without‑prejudice
basis‑‑to find out if there is some room to move on this by both
parties.
Failing that, the provincial Ministers of
Finance may have an opportunity to meet with the federal Minister of Finance in
the near future. Is there any likelihood
of any possibility of the Minister of Transport asking his colleague the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) to raise this issue with the federal Minister
of Finance? I know there are a lot of
pressing issues that need to be discussed at those type of meetings, but I
think that this is one of those issues that could possibly be addressed either
in a private meeting between the two or at the general meeting between all of
the Finance ministers.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the Riverton Boat Works
components or people wrote to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) raising the issue with him,
and invariably the Premier's office has sent it down to my department and asked
what action has been taken. We basically let them know. He is briefed in terms of exactly all
activities that have taken place within the department, and is supportive in
terms of efforts that we are making on behalf of Riverton Boat Works. That will continue to take place.
Whether the Premier is going to take and
raise the issue with the Prime Minister‑‑the federal people have
their legal advisers as well that are playing their game, so we get into a
harangue that is ongoing as it has been for many years now.
I want to inform the critic as well as the
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans), who has been a champion for Riverton
Boat Works, that once we have further information from the legal department, I
am prepared to share that information.
This is not a political issue between the
two parties here. It is something that we try to resolve on behalf of a
resident of Manitoba. As information
comes down, I am prepared to share that and see whether we can strategize some
other way of doing it. We have pretty
well done every angle that we can basically look at in terms of doing it, but
we have not given up.
Mr. Reid: I agree with the minister when he says that
this is a nonpolitical issue. It is very
important that we pull together on this one and try and resolve this.
One last question on this then, can we
anticipate when the minister might expect to receive a legal opinion back from
his legal advisers on this matter so that the owners of Riverton Boat Works
might expect that we would see some movement or some advice coming forward?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in my initial response to
the member I indicated that just as recently as within the last 10 days that
staff and myself took the issue up when the decision was made that probably the
most logical channel of activity left open to us was to refer to our legal
people. Basically that has just
happened. We are in the process of doing
it. It could take a month until we have
a legal response back.
All I can say is that once you have that
response, I am prepared to share that information and to see whether we can
strategize some way of getting this thing resolved once and for all. I would like to get that file off my desk.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that, and we look
forward to seeing what opinions are brought forward by his legal advisers on
this matter.
I am sure that the member for the
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) will convey the minister's sentiments to the member
for Interlake's constituents.
I would like to turn‑‑which is
a part of this topic we have been discussing here because the equipment that
was being constructed by Riverton Boat Works eventually went into service at
serving the Port of Churchill‑‑my comments now to the Port of
Churchill and the community of Churchill.
Of course, the minister has indicated in
the House here‑‑since I was appointed as the critic‑‑his
frustration at the lack of support by the federal government with grain exports
through the Port of Churchill. He says
that he has been working diligently to try and bring some increased export
traffic through Churchill. Of course,
that has not materialized over the course of the two and a half, three years
that I have been here. That is
unfortunate for the port.
Yet last year we saw that there was a
statement that came out that there was going to be a significant amount of
grain shipped through the Port of Churchill during the year, and then we were
quite disappointed by the volumes, the low level of volumes that eventually did
end up going through the port.
There were at that time some extenuating
circumstances in the past where there was some strike action by parties outside
of this province, and yet the federal minister, the Minister of Grains and
Oilseeds, chose not to utilize the Port of Churchill which was open and ready
for business, something that we thought was a bad decision on the part of that
federal minister.
* (1450)
Then we saw that the province, when it
came forward, we thought was for the first time some excitement, something
positive for the future of the Port of Churchill with the agreement with Russia
on economic co‑operation. There
seemed to be some good initiatives in the government's news release, the press
release that went out, because it looked like there was going to be improved
air service, increased use of the Port of Churchill, sustainable development,
ecological research, all kinds of things, tourism, cultural exchanges.
I do not see, and the residents of
Churchill have not seen any of that information, those programs materialize to
this point. This press release came out
in September 13, 1991, saying these good things were going to happen to
Churchill, and here we are in April of 1993, a year and a half later, and none
of this has materialized. Is there some
reason that the minister can explain that we have seen no changes in any of
these areas to this point?
Mr. Driedger: Well, Madam Chairperson, I do not even know
where to start with this whole issue. I
will try to just go back a little ways in terms of what has happened to
Churchill and the frustration I have expressed many times in terms of not just
the federal government, because the Wheat Board in my view is the main
component, and our discussion with the Wheat Board has always been, you know,
to try and move grain through Churchill for export purposes because it should
be cheaper.
What has happened is that continually we
have been shipping less than the desired amount which has kept the port viable,
so we come to the point where over the years now, because we are not shipping
to the point where the port can be viable, the port itself is losing money, and
any accumulated money that they had has all been used up and it is now being
subsidized. The operation of the Port of
Churchill is going to be subsidized right now by other ports who are also not
very happy with that. That is one element of it.
I could maybe go through a whole scenario
of the CN's position in terms of trying to offload that line, the Ports Canada
who say they cannot continue to operate without having a certain amount of
grain through there, the Wheat Board saying that their customers dictate where
they take their grain from. Last year was possibly the most active role that this
government has ever taken in terms of trying to push and promote because of
what has happened in the Soviet Union.
We thought there were windows of opportunity for using the Port of
Churchill for that, to the point where the Premier himself got very actively
involved, writing the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. We probably
lobbied more extensively than we ever have in terms of being very serious and
pushing very hard, with again very disappointing results.
I, in my own mind, envisioned that if there
was not going to be a change taking place in this coming year, that could be
the beginning of the end for the Port of Churchill and the activity taking
place through there.
The member is well aware of the
difficulties we are having with resupply going through there. The Northwest Territories are now looking at
trying to get the best price and are taking some of their resupply through
Montreal. I had the occasion to meet with
the minister of transport for the Northwest Territories prior to Christmas,
raised these issues with him, indicated that there had to be a liason and co‑operation
between the Northwest Territories and Churchill in terms of the health
facilities that are being provided, the resupply that is being provided. It is a natural link, and ask them to
continue to give consideration.
Part of the problem of the resupply being
cheaper coming through Montreal, for example, is that the rates of shipping
down there are such that, because it is a grain‑dependent line I
sometimes fault CN and say, well, they have been doing everything they can to
gradually‑‑maybe I should be careful how I put this‑‑but
they have not been friends of that line and of the activities of
Churchill. Where at one time we used to
have two‑way traffic, there is virtually‑‑it is a one‑way
thing going on there right now. I am
just giving a bit of an overview of where it is at.
I had the occasion to take Shirley Martin
out a little over a year ago, down to Churchill. At that time she gave me the undertaking that
she, because she is a junior Minister of State for Transport responsible for
grain transportation and the Port of Churchill under Corbeil, would get all the
accurate information because there was so much information floating around. You would have CN saying these figures. You would have grain companies using the
figure in terms of what it cost. There
was so much varied information as to what it cost to ship grain through the
Port of Churchill. She indicated to me
and gave me the undertaking that she would get all the precise information
before any decisions would be made, that we would be able to sit down and have
consultation. That was to have taken
place before Christmas. Nothing has
happened. So I had the occasion to meet
her just a little while ago.
I am approaching this from a two‑pronged
approach. I am confident that the
federal government is not going to close down the Port of Churchill this year
during an election year. That is a
political statement. I am confident they
will not undertake that at this time. I
mean, they would not dare do that during that time when they are going to the
polls. So what that does is it gives us
an opportunity for one more year to fight for this.
Now on the bright side, I anticipate that
if nothing happens, that after the election, irregardless who is there, there
is going to be great pressure to close it unless‑‑and now I am
going to the other chapter which is a more positive one.
Earlier on last year our Premier (Mr.
Filmon) signed an agreement of understanding with the Russian people which was
sort of a very vague document, but it basically suggested that there be
dialogue and discussion taking place with the Russians in terms of some
trade. Subsequent to that, our Minister
of I, T and T, Mr. Stefanson, and Mr. Findlay were in Russia and then signed a
subsequent agreement to further bring this thing on stream.
Then one of the most positive things that
happened not that long ago is when we had a delegation from Russia, Minister
Kuramin who is responsible for northern Russia in the Murmansk area, his deputy
and the individual who is running the port out there, three very astute and
aggressive individuals, came down here.
While I was not involved in the actual negotiations that much, I had the
occasion to take them to Churchill to meet with the people there, to show them
everything that was out there.
The mayor and his people were very
receptive and wanted to take him on a grand tour of Churchill, and I compliment
them for that. But I have to say that
Minister Kuramin was more interested in sitting down and talking business. He was not here for sightseeing, he came here
for business purposes. A series of
meetings took place between representatives, our representatives together with
this group, and subsequent to that an agreement was signed.
Now I want to get to the more specifics of
it. The Arctic Bridge concept had been
developed. This is basically what we are
talking about with Russia, which is between Murmansk and Churchill, the
potential trading there. The agreement
that was signed based on recommendations by the Russian minister and his
people, Caribou consultants has been hired to do a study in terms of what could
be two‑way trade through there.
The reason why they recommended Caribou Consultants is because from the
private sector they had had some business activities with these individuals and
they felt comfortable with them.
Aside from that, we also established an
interdepartmental government organization that basically was working with part
of the Russian group as well prior to the signing of the agreement, an
interdepartmental committee. We have two
people that are co‑chairing it; Mike Bessey and Dave Tomasson are co‑chairing
it with other people from all departments participating in this thing.
We think we have the framework there that
basically could develop into positive things for Churchill. In my view, if we can make this thing fly
somewhere along the line, because that report from Caribou consultants is
supposed to be available by the end of June, if there are positive
recommendations, this involves a potential of phosphate coming in, other things
that they are looking at. If this can be
developed, I think then we can have two‑way traffic going through. I think there are many exciting potential
things in the wind.
* (1500)
If we cannot make this fly, I think we
have major, major problems. I see
nothing but doom and gloom on the horizon.
I am very optimistic that this is going to sort of be the one potential
in terms of a positive thing. It is not
just pie in the sky. It is a very
positive thing in my view, or can be a positive thing.
I have to tell the member that at the time
when this Arctic Bridge agreement was signed when the Russians were here, it
was like throwing a cat among a whole bunch of canaries in terms of the federal
government and CN and everybody else.
They came off the wall on that one because this was certainly not in
their long‑range plans. We have,
in my view, something that can develop into a positive thing, and we are doing
everything we can from the government perspective in terms of encouraging this
kind of thing.
Ironically, Minister Kuramin with his
people was very positive. He had no
qualms about it. You have to understand
what is happening in Murmansk; since the military perspective in Murmansk has
diminished dramatically, they have all kinds of facilities in their port
there. They have dramatic equipment.
They know now to deal with the North. He
claimed that they could probably come into Churchill almost 12 months of the
year. I would not expect him to do that
because the bay itself basically freezes solid.
I am sure that we could extend‑‑if we had the wherewithall
and the trade to do it, we could probably extend the season by three, four
months.
It looks positive in that respect. Without looking for all kinds of outside help
from federal governments or anybody else, if we can make this Arctic Bridge
concept work I think we have something that is going to make it very difficult
for people like CN or Ports Canada or the federal government not to be co‑operative
in this regard.
Ironically, when this whole consultation
process with the Russian delegation had taken place and the signing took place,
during the press release Mr. Kuramin made the announcement that they were
prepared to take 500,000 bushels of grain through there for cash and then they
would be prepared to barter beyond that.
I was very encouraged. Incidentally, the Russian delegation also met
with the Wheat Board themselves privately.
It was on their own because the member is well aware of the fact that
the Russians had been failing to pay for their wheat and shipments had ceased
but, since the devolution of the Soviet Union, every country is basically
dealing on their own. In spite of what they
said, some of our eastern people were trying to give the impression that Mr.
Kuramin did not have the authority to speak the way he did. That is not the case because under their
devolution and the system that you work under right now in Russia, I am confident. I have a lot of respect for the individual, a
very shrewd individual, that he was not blowing smoke, that he was talking for
real and that he could produce. He is apparently authorized to take and purchase
a certain amount of wheat for the northern part of Russia. That was my understanding.
I am putting a lot on the record here in
terms that I am trying to just update everybody just where it is at. This information I also relayed to the
transportation symposium that was put on by The Pas‑Port of Churchill
Promotion Committee a couple of weeks ago.
I have tried to give as much information as I can to groups of that
nature, whom I want to compliment for their ongoing support and pushing, which
is in keeping with what my views are on the matter. The Premier (Mr. Filmon) certainly has
mandated me to continue to fight as hard as I can for the retention of
activities in Churchill.
Now that is on the port's and the rail‑line
component end of it. I could spend hours
talking about what is happening with the line, the rehabilitation of the line,
whether we can use cryo‑anchors on it, and the cost of it. When CN does an estimate, they use a figure
of $100 million to $125 million. When we have a consultant that has actually
undertaken the work, he is looking at $35 million. I mean, there are so many balls in the air on
this thing and different information, so that is why I say, I could keep on
rolling for a long time in terms of all the issues.
The member raised a number of things. In the news release of September 1991, there
was reference made to certain other developments out there. I want to just say that the spaceport
activities, which the Minister of I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson) has been actively
involved with, are still on the burner somewhere. It is having
difficulties. I could go into what the
difficulties are, but it is still being talked about.
We have the National Wilderness Park that
the Department of Natural Resources has been working together with the feds to
establish. I think we are very close in
terms of resolving the concerns of the users in the area of the park itself.
So there is, in my view, possibly more
positive activities in the mix than there has been for a long time. I might tell the member that earlier on in my
tenure as Minister of Highways and Transportation, I sometimes felt as if I
were all alone in this issue; and, when things did not go well, I took the
abuse for it. I want to assure members
that the government's position is very positive in terms of approaching it from
whatever angle we can in making sure that we have a continuation of activities
in the Port of Churchill. But, again, I
want to take and qualify that to some degree, saying that if this Arctic Bridge
development with Russia does not happen, if we are going to rely on the Wheat
Board, CN and Ports Canada to maintain the operations there, we are fighting a
losing battle on that. So there has to
be a new injection somewhere along the line, a new issue, and we think we have
that potential issue there right now. We
will do everything we can to take and move that forward so that we can come up
with a positive position. So it is going
to very hard for the enemies of Churchill to take and say no to the activities
there.
Mr. Reid: The minister's words were very encouraging
there. I was somewhat dismayed by what I
had heard the Liberal critic for St. James (Mr. Edwards) say, when he did not
want to continue this debate too long today, that we had‑‑I sensed
that there were other more important matters on his mind that he wanted to get
to outside of Churchill. So I hope that
was not his intent by the comments that he had made to the minister.
This matter is very important to the
residents of Churchill and the communities along the bayline. The minister had indicated‑‑and I
thank him for the comments that he made with respect to many of the issues
here. The minister had made reference to
Caribou consultants. That is a new one
to me. Can he explain who Caribou
consultants are if he has knowledge of that?
* (1510)
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not quite sure of the
names. One name comes to mind; Caribou
Ventures is the name of the company.
They have been acting as the business agents for the Russians for three
or four years. That is why they have a comfort
level, you know, and recommended that those were the people that we would be
hiring as consultants.
So they are working in conjunction with
what the Russians feel that they could trade, ironically, and what we could
trade with them, aside from grain as well.
Interestingly enough, they made some comments saying that they even
talked about exporting nickel into here, which created the hair on everybody in
Thompson's area to stand right on end.
But they basically are challenged to look
at all the options in terms of what would make good financial economical sense
to move activities through Churchill to Murmansk and back.
Mr. Reid: The minister made reference to an agreement
that was struck with the Russian representatives when they were here, the commitment
for 500,000 metric tonnes of grain to be shipped. Now, maybe the minister could
elaborate on that a bit for me so that I could get a better understanding.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I want to be very
cautious. The agreement that was signed between government representatives,
namely the Minister of Northern Affairs and responsible for Native Affairs (Mr.
Downey), and the minister from Russia, Mr. Kuramin, that agreement was the
hiring of the consultants, Caribou Ventures.
That was what that agreement was about.
The announcement that the Russian minister
made in terms of being prepared to take 500,000 bushels of wheat through the
Port of Churchill, that came out of the blue.
In fact, everything was working through interpreters, and when the cameras
were on and he was positive about this agreement that they had signed, he made
that announcement as well. I was sitting
there listening to the interpreter and I nearly jumped up and applauded right
away. So we will be pursuing that, and I
do not regard that as just smoke or wind and rabbit tracks. I think there is substance behind that kind
of statement and we will be pursuing that.
Now, his ports manager had said that, by
and large‑‑and this is a thing we have to clarify a little
bit. There is some confusion out there,
at least in my mind, because the ports manager when we were at Churchill said
that he had committed ships for most of this year's activities going through
other ports. Now, whether they are going
to reverse that or not, this is a thing we have to work in terms of
clarification, but he felt that for the future they would automatically be able
to take all this grain through there.
Now, you know, there is some vagueness
here in terms of that grain movement itself, and that is why I come back to the
Arctic Bridge concept, that has to develop the whole thing. We cannot just bank on the fact that there is
going to be a one‑shot deal in terms of the 500 million bushels of
grain. There has to be a much longer
term plan in place, because if we just operate on the one year, that is what I
have been doing for five years, fighting and struggling‑‑not alone
necessarily, because the support of the opposition has been there as well‑‑but
we have been struggling and pushing to continue to have fair treatment with the
Port of Churchill, and that has not happened.
So this is, in my view at least, an element that we can take and develop
and have something that could be of a long‑lasting nature.
Mr. Reid: I agree with the minister when he says that
we should be looking at a long‑range goal or plan more than just the one
year, with respect to Churchill's future.
I think it is important for us and for the port to have that sense of
security so that they too can plan their futures.
The Russian government, from my
understanding, has indicated that they are going to utilize a portion of their
ice‑breaking fleet, which I understand is amongst the best in the
world. If my understanding is correct,
they have some 700 icebreakers. Is that
figure accurate? It is my understanding
as well that some of those icebreakers will be moving through the Arctic this
coming summer, which we are pretty close to now, to try and see whether or not
it is feasible for them to move some of their traffic through the Arctic passage.
Can the minister elaborate? Does he have any information with respect to
the use of icebreakers in the Arctic?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I think the member is
wrong when he says that the Russians have 700 icebreakers. That number has never been up for discussion
somewhere along the line. What the
Russian people told us at the time when we were at Churchill, he said how many
metres of ice that they could break without using icebreakers. [interjection]
How many metres was it? Three metres,
which is nine feet of ice, something like that.
He felt that if they really wanted to, they could virtually come in
there at any given time at Churchill. So
I think maybe there was a little bit of an exaggeration there, because I do not
think it would be feasible to do that in the long run.
We know, with the kind of equipment that
they have, which is sophisticated equipment, they have been operating in the
northern parts of the continent over the many years, probably much more
efficiently than anybody else. They know
how to deal with the situation in the North, and I feel confident that the
short season we by and large always outline as to being safe for insurance
purposes, et cetera, could be expanded to a considerable degree with these
people with their equipment.
Mr. Reid: Now that I think of it, the number 700 seems
to be fairly high as an exaggeration.
That seemed to be the number that came to mind of what I recalled. I do not have the document here that showed
that.
Even if they have a significant number of
icebreakers, is there any possibility, with the commitment to move 500,000
metric tonnes or an interest in moving 500,000 metric tonnes through Churchill,
and with the fleet of icebreakers the Russian government says they have, that
we can put the two together for this coming shipping season, which is not far
away, that we could bring icebreakers in sometime possibly at the beginning of
June and start moving the exports through that port at an earlier time,
utilizing the equipment that is available.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is where the Caribou
Ventures and our in‑house committee with the two co‑chairmen‑‑these
are the people that are working together, communicating with a lot of people as
well, but communicating with the Russians in terms of trying to package all
this. So I do not have a current status
exactly where they are at right now. I
just know that they have a timetable that they have to by and large meet, which
is a report that has to come forward by the end of June which I would hope at
that time would encompass some grain movement.
The member should be aware though that the
Wheat Board is still a player in this whole process, and they have not
necessarily changed their position that much.
There would have to be, in my view, a request from the Russian people to
take the grain through there. If we
relied on‑‑I am trying to be nice to them‑‑the Wheat
Board to be an instigator in this case, I do not think it would happen. So that was putting it in a very nice way.
Mr. Reid: Sometimes I think the minister is too nice
when it comes to dealing with some of the federal agencies on this matter. Sometimes it is better, I think, to speak our
minds. God knows that we have been listening to their line for a number of
years now and it has gotten us nowhere while we have waited for them to take
action on this issue.
Has the minister received any kind of
indication then from the minister responsible for the Wheat Board or from the
federal Minister for Grains and Oilseeds that we would look at‑‑or
the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, I should say‑‑exporting
set volumes of grain through the port this year?
I would think that by the end of April,
which we are at right now, only some little over two months from the start of the
new shipping season, that we would have some kind of an indication from the
federal government what we might expect for this coming shipping season.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the indication that we
have, a commitment is that the port will not close this year. We also have an indication there is going to
be good movement of grain through there, but to what extent‑‑I
mean, if we are going to do the same thing as we have done in the last few
years.
I want to take a little exception to the
remark that the member mentioned, that in spite of what we have done nothing
has happened. Well, let him look even
beyond my five years. The trend was
established 15 years ago where it started sliding down. So it is not something that developed in the
last five years. There was never a plan
in place that was really constructive during their administration time, and we
finally, hopefully, after much frustration, maybe do have a plan that could
maybe be the salvation of it. Whether
they had been government for the last five years or myself, I can assure you
that I do not think anything would have changed. It could have maybe even gotten worse,
because I would like to think that we put a very strong case forward many
times.
Aside from that, we are working on the
aspect of trying to get more grain‑‑not just more grain,
substantive grain moving through the port so that we can make the port itself
viable. Just to ship some grain through there is not adequate again, and that
is why I, maybe wrongfully, but I am hanging my hat on the fact of the
willingness of the Russian people to take grain through there. If we can get that all tidied up‑‑and
that is what is all in the mix at the present time and I cannot make a concrete
statement in terms of how much is going to go through there. I cannot do that at any given time, because
the Wheat Board only gives us that information when they finally reach a
contract somewhere along the line. But
certainly the pressure has never been, I think, stronger, potentially, in
coming down in support of movement of grain through the Port of Churchill than
it is at the present time.
Mr. Reid: Maybe we have not said this before, but I
think we would like nothing better than to be able to join with the minister in
this House, with an announcement that the minister might bring forward
indicating that we have a long‑term agreement to export product through
Churchill and to bring imports in for the consumers of western Canada.
I am sure that if the minister could come
forward with an announcement like that, utilizing on a long‑term
commitment the Port of Churchill and finally recognizing‑‑and not
this minister but others finally recognizing the importance and the
significance of this port, we would join with the minister and we would
congratulate him upon that accomplishment.
I would like nothing better than to be able to do that.
* (1620)
I am sure that the residents of Churchill
and the people living along the bayline would feel the same way, but we have
not reached that point yet where we can congratulate the minister. That is one
of the reasons why we are asking questions here to find out what progress has
been made, because since the agreement was signed in 1991 we have not seen‑‑maybe
the wheels are turning very slowly on this‑‑but we have not seen
any significant progress or movement in any positive direction.
Mr. Driedger: I suppose I should have a warm, fuzzy feeling
with the comments made by the member that if there was something good to
announce that we would sort of, you know, hug each other and share the
announcement. I have taken the abuse for
five years for everything that has gone wrong with Churchill. If there is going to be something positive, I
do not know whether I would jump up and necessarily want to share it with the
member, jointly. I would be very pleased
to make that announcement and I know that he would be supportive in terms of
doing‑‑you know, supporting that announcement.
The other thing that I have promoted
continually is the province of Saskatchewan.
Basically, when I first took office, left us in the lurch where they
would do their funding for the Churchill activities as well as Alberta. I have encouraged very strongly The Pas‑Port
of Churchill committee to take and work together with the Saskatchewan government
to try and make sure that they are solidly on side and support so that it is
not just Manitoba. The member is fully
aware that the catchment area for grain for the Port of Churchill is by and
large out of northern Saskatchewan and partly into Alberta. So we need them on side as well, and the
producers I think generally are supportive.
However, the member must also realize that
you have the individual private grain companies‑‑we have membership
there who are basically trying to be not supportive of it. See, that is the danger we have here. We have the private grain companies that by
and large ship and market their grain through the Wheat Board, move their grain
through either the East Coast‑‑through the St. Lawrence
Seaway. There is nobody that really,
pardon the expression, gives a darn about the Churchill end of it except maybe
the member from The Pas, myself and a few others.
There is support out there, but we have
never managed to harness it to the point where we should have, and that is why
I encourage that Saskatchewan‑‑you know, our lobby people should
embrace Saskatchewan to come with us on this thing to raise their
concerns. I think it has more clout than
if we just try and do it on our own.
Mr. Reid: The minister mentioned just a short time ago
that there were two members of the government staff, Mr. Bessey and one other
person, Mr. Tomasson, who were working on this issue. Is that an
interdepartmental committee that is working on this, or what departments does
it include that are included under the jurisdiction of this committee? Can the minister give me an understanding of
that?
Mr. Driedger: It is an interdepartmental committee that has
been established, and by and large we feel that, next to the minister, is a
very high level. That is why we have Mr.
Bessey, who is with the Economic Development Board; we have Mr. Tomasson, who
is with the deputy minister of native and northern affairs, Deputy Minister of
Energy and Mines, and the I, T and T, Mr. Stefanson's department. We have representatives from my department,
we have representatives from all the departments that basically have a vested
interest with Churchill. So it is a
pretty encompassing group and I feel comfortable that we finally‑‑I
think this should have happened before‑‑but we finally have a group
that has a very dedicated interest in terms of moving things forward.
Mr. Reid: I might have missed it, but maybe the
minister can indicate to me, was there a member from the Minister of Agriculture's
(Mr. Findlay) department sitting on that committee as an adviser as well?
Mr. Driedger: No, Madam Chairperson. Agriculture does not have a representative on
there, but the committee is set in such a way that there is enough flexibility
where there is a vested interest that could be brought forward under that
umbrella group that anybody can be pulled in to participate from any
department.
Mr. Reid: It strikes me as funny that Churchill has
been primarily a grain exporting port outside of the 37,000 metric tonnes of
resupply, I think it is, that goes to the
It strikes me as odd that there seems to
be a vested interest here for Manitoba's grain farm producers and yet the
Department of Ag does not seem to represent those interests on the committee.
Mr. Driedger: I might inform the member, maybe to his
surprise, that the
I mean, if there was anything that the
Department of Agriculture could add to the vested interest and the people we
have on this board‑‑you know, there is no hidden agenda here in
terms of why they are not on there. It
is just that we wanted people who had a vested interest, like I, T and T,
Department of Northern Affairs, Department of Highways, Department of Rural
Development. These are the ones that
basically are working with the area, including, I think, Government Services
who have activities out there in Churchill.
So it was addressed to basically deal with the issues that are Churchill
oriented.
* (1530)
Mr. Reid: Then, as the minister says, the grain
producers of
Mr. Driedger: There have been realms of correspondence that
have moved between our province, my department and the government of
An Honourable Member: What change?
Mr. Driedger: No, no.
We changed government and then we had Mr. Wiens, and I had a good
working relationship with Mr. Wiens. I
had occasion to meet with Mr. Koskie the other day. You know, the ministers, the last few that I
have talked to and certainly the last three that I have been involved with in
my short tenure‑‑In fact it was four, but three that I have been
working with that basically were supportive in terms of the activities at
Churchill.
Also, at the western ministers meeting,
all four ministers agreed that there should be a position put forward in
support of the Port of Churchill.
I mean, it is getting the high profile
from the government that it basically requires.
We have a little bit of a deafness problem when we go east and that is
sometimes‑‑we have a local expression that sometimes you need a two‑by‑four
to get somebody's attention. I think we
are almost to the two‑by‑four stage at the present time.
Mr. Reid: Maybe that situation with deaf parties east
of us will be remedied when we have the federal election and maybe will
hopefully result in some positive significant change for the future of
Churchill.
There has been discussion, I know the minister
alluded to a bit earlier in his comments, with the resupply. Churchill has historically been providers of
resupply transportation services to the Northwest Territories communities as
well as providing, I believe, much‑needed medical services to the Churchill
medical health facility.
Does the minister have any background
information or any information that is current that would provide us with a
better understanding why the communities in the Northwest Territories are
looking at moving their product around from the St. Lawrence, from the Montreal‑area
ports to the Northwest Territories?
Are there some economies of scale there
that those ports are indicating to the Northwest Territories that by a one‑time
large shipment it would be more economical for the Northwest Territories to
move in that direction, even though knowing that they would have to do all of
their ordering for that one shipment?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in my discussions with the
minister from the
That is what I found so disturbing is the
fact that the resupply of fuel could be done cheaper through Montreal than
through from here when you consider where the fuel sources come from. Again, in my mind, it relates to the fact
that as regards our rail cost from here to Churchill for resupply to the
Northwest communities, there is something out of whack here. Hopefully, as we
evolve with some of these things, these things can be addressed in terms of
maybe getting more efficient rates.
I think we have continually put forward
the position‑‑I am looking at Dennis here‑‑in terms of
saying it is a grain‑dependent line, which basically gives CN a subsidy
under the Western Grain Transportation Act.
Before the payments, the subsidies go to the rail lines, there is a
component that is addressed to CN for the Churchill line because it is a grain‑dependent
line which is paid for by the producers out of their money, by and large. These are all the other arguments, endless
ones that I could bring forward as we go through some of the frustrations.
My feeling would be that if it would not
be a grain‑dependent line‑‑it comes down to the point where
we feel that as a grain‑dependent line 60 percent of the activity has to
be grain. That is what they say they are putting the argument on.
We feel that, if that grain dependency was
removed, they would be more aggressively marketing their line because they
really are not marketing, in my view, the line to any degree. Surely to heck
there must be things coming out of the Thompson nickel mines that could
probably be used, like our ore transportation, timber transportation. There are many aspects of it that I think
could be tied into that if they were actively marketing it. That is part of the whole problem that we
have been going through, and we can regurgitate that forever, I guess, and not
really accomplish anything.
What I would rather look at right now for
the members is the position we are in right now, the possible opportunity of
having something long range develop. If
there ever, in my view, were held a positive ray of hope other than running
around trying to lobby to the decision makers, we can probably come up with
something positive. I feel that this is
the opportunity that we need.
Mr. Reid: I do not mean to put the minister on the spot
with what I am going to say here, but I think it needs to be said. Is there a likelihood, since my understanding
is that the Northwest Territories receives a significant amount of its revenue
from the federal government, that the federal government is being extensively
lobbied by business interests in and about the St. Lawrence ports to encourage
the federal government to put pressure on the Northwest Territories government
to look at moving some of their product through the port? In other words, there is political pressure
being brought to bear by the lobbying efforts on the federal government and, in
turn, indirectly upon the government of the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the
I could get into the whole realm of the
St. Lawrence Seaway and the lobbying that takes place over a system that I think
is gradually decreasing, and our grain from Manitoba basically moves through
that system. We have concerns that have
to be addressed as well to make sure that system stays there, so that we are
not a captive market to ship to the West Coast.
There are realms of this stuff in discussions taking place.
I sometimes feel that, if I got paid by
the hour and got paid for the time I have spent on Churchill issues, possibly I
would‑‑
An Honourable Member: Watch it, Albert. You will attract another Free Press headline
story.
Mr. Driedger: Cancel my comments. I was alerted by my colleague that this could
create further problems. We will leave
that discussion alone. I do not want to
get paid by the hour. I just wanted to illustrate
the amount of time and efforts that my department and I have spent in working
on Churchill issues and will continue to do that with a real vigour and
dedication.
Mr. Reid: I do not know if I ended up getting a real
answer out of that or not.
One gets the sense, I guess, by the
comments and the actions of the federal Minister responsible for Grains and
Oilseeds and the Wheat Board, one and the same person, actions to deny any
opportunities to the Port of Churchill, that we would not expect much more that
what we have seen out of this current government. I am not sure if there is any
commitment from any parties other than our own that have, over a long period of
time, expressed our commitment to the Port of Churchill.
Communications with the Wheat Board, of
course, are important. I know they
receive direction from the minister of the Wheat Board, but have they expressed
to this minister any difficulties with meeting that 500,000 metric tonnes‑‑what
we hope is a commitment for this coming grain‑shipping season? Has the Wheat Board indicated that there are
any problems with moving that volume through the port this year?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is another can of
worms because there was the agreement between the federal and provincial governments
years back when they rehabilitated the boxcars, a fleet of boxcars specifically
for the movement of grain to the
I personally do not consider that at
all. If the commitment is there that
somebody wants to take 500,000 or 800,000 tonnes of wheat or grain through the
Port of Churchill, I will chase them and we will get out the baseball bats and
we will get them to move it down there.
I do not care how we do it.
The arguments that I have used time and
time again, and we have debates up and down, I maintain that they can use the
hopper cars at the present time to move grain through the Port of
Churchill. We used the hopper cars to
move cement, et cetera, down to Gillam and that area there. I see absolutely no reason why we should not,
at least on an experimental basis, do it already. I think it can be done. Engineers I have talked to, qualified people
that are retired from CN, say they feel there are ways of doing it, but CN
engineers, by and large, do not really care‑‑I want to phrase my words
carefully‑‑could not really care whether the thing lives or
dies. I am talking about the line to
Churchill.
So I have been pushing, saying, if we have
the commitment for a certain amount of grain that we would continue to escalate
our pushing for the use of having the hopper cars go all the way down to
Churchill. Talking with the port's
manager, Mr. Johnson at Churchill, he feels confident that he can handle
it. My staff just indicated to me that
actually if there was that desire we could put 140,000 tonnes into storage in
Churchill right now. The Wheat Board always has said, well, we do not want to
store it, because it weakens our bargaining position because we have the grain
there.
An Honourable Member: The same argument for St. Lawrence and Vancouver.
* (1540)
Mr. Driedger: Yes. I
mean, these are all the things that we have been up against all the time.
I would welcome the challenge. If we had a commitment of grain to the tune
of 500,000 tonnes or better going to Churchill and if the rail line would say
they could not handle it because of lack of boxcars or stuff like that, I would
be prepared to take that fight on very, very actively. I still think that our line is strong enough.
They tell me that the concern is with the
hopper cars that you start having an oscillating effect and ultimately could
cause derailment. We have suggested
that, in order to offset it, you have maybe 10 hopper cars and have one
boxcar. We said experiment with
something to see whether it can work, but to date we have not been successful
in that regard. They can lease
cars. If there is going to be a
commitment for grain to move to there, I am confident that CN will deliver. They will take and utilize what they have to
in order to actually get the grain down there.
Mr. Reid: This brings me back to a point about rail
cars when we first started talking about this at this sitting. Maybe I should ask this question first, does
the minister have an understanding through the Wheat Board or through the
railways what the replacement ratio or numbers would be for grain
transportation cars, the cylindrical hoppers or the other cars that are used in
the fleet outside of the boxcar fleet, the grain boxes? What would be the replacement numbers of the
articulated hoppers‑‑not the articulated‑‑but the
cylindrical hoppers that are used to transport grain in the Canadian system?
The reason why I asked that, I will
explain, is that if there is going to be a replacement required for cars in the
fleet on a regular and ongoing basis, is there any likelihood that we can have
through some kind of agreement with the federal government or the other
governments, Alberta, Saskatchewan, that are involved in the construction where
we could move to a car that would have a lower centre of gravity or an
articulated car that would be able to be utilized on all of the lines in the
country?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I suppose it is regarded
partly hypothetical in all that could be done.
Lots of things could be done.
First of all, we have to establish a rationale for doing it. If we have the requirements for movement of
grain through there, then I think, ultimately, we would address it by whatever
means, either by an articulated hopper car or by using the regular hopper cars
and trying that. Once we can put the
pressure on that we need to have it done, then I think that would fall into
place.
I could speculate and say, well, we could
do this, we could do that. We need some
reason to put the pressure on for some of these things to happen, and with
290,000 tonnes going through there, that is not‑‑it is pretty hard
to put pressure on that. So we have to develop the case first of the need for
it; then I think that automatically once you have that that these other things
will fall into place. Certainly, whether
we look at a lower‑gravity hopper car or articulated one specifically for
that line, these are things that we have to build a case for, and I hope it can
come to that point where we have to put pressure on somebody to come up with
some option on it.
I would welcome that challenge whether we
talk of using the existing hopper cars on an experimental basis, whether we
should be pushing for an articulated hopper car. I welcome the challenge of pushing at the
railways and working with them to see how they will deliver because if we have
the product to deliver, I think they would be receptive to it at that stage of
the game. Let them play ball.
Mr. Reid: I thought that, with the competition that is
ongoing between CN and CP now for their articulated hopper car used for potash,
it would be a perfect opportunity for us not only to construct some of those
new cars in the province, but at the same time, if that type of car is going to
be good enough for the potash transportation, which is a fairly heavy
commodity, why we could not have a portion of that fleet constructed for the
sole purpose or the purpose of utilization for the transport of grain products.
That is one of the reasons why I raised
that. Maybe the minister would like to
comment on whether or not he has had any communications with the federal
government, the government of Saskatchewan, government of Alberta, of changing
over any portion of their fleet that they may choose to upgrade or to replace
as the pieces of equipment either are destroyed through wrecks or accidents, or
deteriorate through aging.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I do not know whether
there are any more cars being manufactured at the present time either by
Over the years now, I certainly have not
been shy with raising Churchill issues with anybody that will listen, but
sometimes when I attend some of the meetings like Westarc, some of them already
throw up their hands in consternation that I am going to be raising the
Churchill issues again. So I have been
doing that at every possible opportunity where somebody could have a role to
play in this thing. I raise it
continually, and will continue to do so much stronger if it looks like we have
some things developing under the Arctic Bridge.
Mr. Reid: So that we do not fall down on what will,
hopefully, be our end of the bargain, is the minister aware through his
colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefanson) whether
or not we have looked at securing markets inside Canada, or maybe even in the
northern U.S. states for what will, hopefully, be imports of phosphate product
that may be coming in as an import so that we would be able to then utilize
that bayline in two‑way traffic?
Is the minister aware of any development on any of those issues with
respect to distribution and sales of that product?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is basically what the
agreement with Caribou Ventures is undertaking in conjunction with the internal
committee that we have set up with the two co‑chairmen, namely, Bessey
and Tomasson. These are the things that
they are working at jointly together with Caribou Ventures in establishing the
potential of markets. I know of certain
studies that have already been in process or have been completed in terms of
the potential of phosphate going into Saskatchewan for fertilizer production or
Brandon maybe or down into the States.
We still think that the potential access from Churchill into the central
states, that corridor, should have all kinds of potential, and these are the
things that are being looked at to maybe see whether we can use that.
We feel there is more and more trend
towards north‑south activity taking place. Why not tie this into the whole, what we
call, Red River corridor which puts us right into the guts of the States, into
the central states? We have great
potential there. So these are all the things that are in the mix at the present
time, and I sure hope that something fruitful will come out of that.
Mr. Reid: It almost sounds like the minister does not
want to give a firm indication of any progress on that, or am I misreading his
comments on any of the progress that he has indicated here?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member is totally
erroneous when he makes that kind of a suggestion. I do not have the details in front of me of
exactly where they are at, but I know that there are various components that
are working extensively in terms of meeting a June deadline to come up with all
these options. A lot of that has to do
with the phosphate and with as to who would be the end‑users for
phosphate out here so that we can get this two‑way trade going.
* (1550)
So I cannot specifically say that they are
at stage two out of stage five now in terms of almost having an understanding,
or that these are the requirements. If I
had the time, I would be pleased to undertake that myself. That is why we have Caribou Ventures doing
it, and why we have the interdepartmental committee that basically is working
on these things at the present time. If
there is going to be anything that we can announce on the positive side,
believe me, I will not hesitate. I will be standing on the top of my desk there
making the announcements. So it is not
that I am holding anything back. Any information that I have I basically put on
the table as frankly and honestly as I know how to do it before the member here
today in our discussions.
Mr. Reid: I look forward to the minister's June
announcement to give us some kind of a progress report and what we might expect
for the coming shipping season and hopefully beyond.
The rocket range was also very, and is,
hopefully, still very important to the technological change that we hope to see
in this province, where we move into maybe a high‑tech type of industry.
Can the minister give me some background on what has taken place over the
course of the last year with respect to the rocket range and what progress we
have seen on that front?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, there was a group
established that has been working hard to establish the spaceport at
Churchill. There has been elation at
times, positive feelings and also negative reaction from time to time of the
key players that are involved, because in order to make that thing effective
you have to have a user of the facility.
With my having limited knowledge, this question would probably be better
addressed to the Minister for I, T and T (Mr. Stefanson), who has been actively
involved through his department with that.
All I can say is, from my observations,
that the community has been pushing very hard.
However, some of the people that were going to be the users of this‑‑apparently,
conditions are ideal for using it as a rocket range, and we only have a few
cases that like throughout the world.
There is one also in Alaska apparently,
which is a similar type of condition, and one of the key pooh‑bahs, if I
could be so blunt as to use that expression, or one of the key people that is
involved in the some of the decision making in the States with these companies
that would be utilizing this, is apparently a senator or elected official from
Alaska. You know that all of a sudden
changes the perspective a little bit, so these are frustrating things that
happen sometimes in a decision‑making role.
I certainly want to compliment the people
of Churchill for their enthusiasm and continued pushing and digging to try and
have this thing move forward. However,
their enthusiasm and even our support are not going to be enough to do it
unless we have the users that basically will use it to feel comfortable doing
it. Those decisions get made outside of
our realm.
I know that lobbying has been taking
place, and the details of it, as I say, would be better addressed to I, T and
T. But this is my perspective of what I
understand is taking place, and there are still things in the mix at the
present time.
Mr. Reid: I just thought that the minister might have
some background knowledge of it, possibly through cabinet discussions or
private discussions he might have had with his colleague. That is why I asked.
We on this side view the spaceport as
being a key component to moving Manitoba into the 21st Century technologically
because of what that type of operation would mean to this province. We also sensed, or were informed, that there
seemed to be a bit of stalling on this matter with respect to the Canadian
government's space agency. We are quite
concerned, if that if the case, that there is that stalling on that decision
making for the reactivation of the rocket range there.
Does the minister have even preliminary
background information on that that he might be able to provide us with?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I would do injustice to
trying to address this situation by trying to give an impression that I have
the knowledge of the total implications of it.
I think it would not be fair if I start speculating.
On the areas where I am involved, I have
much more comfort in terms of dealing with that. By making commitments, I just give him the
overall view of what basically are some of the components that are out there.
Again, I repeat that the community, the
organization that is out there and the support of the provincial government,
and even if the federal government is supportive of it‑‑and I
cannot assure him whether that is the case or not‑‑but the main
players, the investors that are basically involved, are the ones that
ultimately have to be courted and encouraged to give them a positive package
that it is worthwhile for them to put big money into there.
Madam Chairperson, I have been out
there. In fact, I can walk through what
we call the spaceport area there right now‑‑the structures that are
out there and the rocket launches are out there. I could actually do that with my eyes closed
really. I have been there that often
looking at it.
There is going to have to be a tremendous
investment that has to be put into that, and whoever is going to do that has to
have the comfort that this is for long‑term plans.
My understanding is that it was
communication satellites that were going to be launched out of that spaceport,
but I have limited knowledge. I think it
would not be fair for me to take and try and answer questions on the details of
that.
* (1600)
Mr. Reid: Since the rail line, the bayline plays such a
critical role, it is a key component of any reactivation of the rocket range
and, hopefully, for the utilization of the port for two‑way traffic,
phosphate imports and grain and other exports.
I believe the minister has had meetings not that long ago with members
of The Pas‑Port of Churchill Promotion Committee and possibly even the
Hudson Bay Route Association. My
understanding was that there were some people that were knowledgeable, some
experts from the firm that did the installation of the cryo‑anchors on
the rail line.
Can the minister give me an update or an
understanding of the position of the people that were in attendance at that
meeting, whether or not there is any feasibility in upgrading that line,
whether there is any change in the costs that might be anticipated to upgrade
the line?
I know we have had disagreements in the
past on who should undertake those repairs, but I would like to get a better
understanding on what the position was of the companies that were involved in
the actual installation.
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, in my earlier comments, I
did a sort of summarization of the Churchill situation with reference to the
fact that CN felt the rehabilitation of the line would cost anywhere from $100
million to $125 million. We have a
private company that is basically working with the cryo‑anchors over the
years who‑‑Arctic Foundations, I believe, is the name of the
organization‑‑who feel very confident that they can come up with
figures that would be in the $40 million bracket to stabilize the line.
Once we have the rationale and
justification that all of this will happen, instead of just marking time to try
and close the whole thing. I think that in these things we would play a role in
terms of saying, hey, listen, it can be done for a lot less money. But these are some of the arguments that have
been created at the eastern end of the decision‑making process, that the
cost of rehabilitation is too high, as part of the whole problem that they have
psychologically developed.
I think once we get down to the point
where we have the cause and determination to continue operating on a longer‑term
plan that these are things that are going to come into play at that time. I have the confidence that Arctic
Foundations, whom we met with and talked with, are very qualified in terms of
doing the rehabilitation at a fraction of the cost.
Mr. Reid: I had the opportunity to have a brief
discussion with the firm that had done the original installation. I have looked at the IBI Study; I have looked
at the Saskatchewan government's study that was done. Looking at those two studies and talking with
the people that were involved in the original installation, I agree with the
minister that the costs would be significantly less. I think the cost was in the range of
approximately $25 million to $35 million, everything in for the cost of
rehabilitating that line, to stabilize the permafrost on the bayline.
I know that the minister and I have
disagreed about the role that we can play as a province on this. When I suggested last year that we have a
four‑way partnership involving the governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
federal government and CN Rail to split the costs of upgrading this line so
that we would have something permanent in place to totally remove all the
railway's arguments for utilizing the standard hopper car fleet on the
line. I see the railway is continuing to
use the instability of that line in their estimation as their basis of their
argument, and that is one of the reasons why I thought that that was a proposal
to put forward to do that.
Now the minister may see that, from a
philosophical point of view, that is not appropriate because he has said many
times that it is a federal government responsibility. I do not disagree that it is a federal
government responsibility. I think very
much it is, and CN has a role as an agency of the federal government to upgrade
that line, to provide that service, the best possible service. They have not chosen to do that for various
reasons that they have put forward because basically they want to abandon that
line.
We are not sure what is going to happen
with VIA Rail now with the announcement yesterday in the federal budget where
VIA Rail is, from my understanding, going to see their financial support from
the federal government cut back by $50 million this year. They are going to cut back, I believe, $100
million per year every year thereafter until the financial support is totally
eliminated.
Now the questions are here: What happens to the remote mandate of the
services as we see on the bayline? What
position does this put the province in with respect to that line? What can we expect, and what information has the
minister received from the federal Minister of Transport or through the
Minister of Finance that would indicate we are going to see a retention of the
remote‑mandated services for the bayline?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, first of all, the
federal budget came down yesterday. We
do not have the details. During Question
Period, even the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) was saying that we do not
have the details of the impact of many of the decisions, but I want to just
touch on the VIA Rail aspect of it.
I had occasion just a little while ago to
meet with representatives from VIA Rail, who stopped at my office, informed me,
and basically updated me as to what was happening. At the time, when the major decision was made
to basically cut VIA Rail in half, since that time they feel confident that
they are gradually making a recovery and would be less dependent on subsidies
from the federal government.
In fact, they gave an indication that the
area in Alberta, between Banff and Vancouver, was booked for July and
August. You could not even get a seat on
there anymore. I say, well, hey, you
know, put more cars on it, whatever the case may be if you are that
booked. They gave me the indication that
they feel that VIA Rail is making positive progress. They gave me employment figures.
The one scary part that was raised is the
fact that the Winnipeg component in terms of the maintenance base for VIA Rail
here in Winnipeg basically deals with the line through remote communities. They say that is an element that is not‑‑I
raise a personal concern now. I do not
have the justification. I have not even
read my briefing note here from my letter, but I have some concern with this
cut that they could again possibly target our services to remote
communities. I do not have any further
information on that. We will be pursuing
that to see whether the budget impact is going to reflect on our services to
remote communities.
Maybe just for the member's edification,
the estimated subsidy requirements for '95‑96 were anticipated at $350
million, and a $50 million cut at that time would bring it down to a $300
million subsidy. In '96‑97 there
is a further $50 million cut projected with the expected subsidy requirements
for that year then being at $250 million.
These are the cuts that are being projected by the budgetary process out
of a capital budget which in 1991 was $541 million, and in '92 the capital
budget for VIA was $531.6 million. So I
put these figures on the record for the member's edification, just to get a
feel for where it is at.
I felt encouraged that the silver bullet,
because they have refurbished the units, is doing well, and I feel that they
were promoting very strongly the Silver and Blue Class‑‑I think
they call it Silver and Blue Class unit‑‑that is where they have
restored it. Apparently they are getting
rave reviews from people that have used it and are doing their own promotion in
terms of expanding the use of that. [interjection]
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Order, please.
The honourable Minister of Highways to finish.
Mr. Driedger: Whatever you want. I am here to answer.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Acting Chairperson, for the minister, I
want to talk briefly‑‑we have been speaking, I understand, about
VIA Rail, but I want to talk briefly about the airline industry and the
minister's involvement in that in respect to some of the things that have
happened here.
The recent decision by the transport
agency on the Gemini transportation, deciding that they did not have‑‑perhaps
I could have order, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
I think the minister is having a hard time hearing my question.
[interjection]
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): The honourable member for St. James to finish
his question.
Mr. Edwards: Thank you, Mr. Acting Chairperson.
The recent decision by the National
Transportation Agency, I believe, was that they did not have jurisdiction to
deal with the dispute between Gemini and Canadian Airlines. I wonder if the minister can indicate what
discussions he has had with Gemini, what discussions he has had with Air Canada
since that decision, and what the impact of that will be on Manitoba's
operation in respect of Gemini.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not see this as
a criticism necessarily of the member.
We spent, I think, something like an hour and a half on the issue last
night dealing exactly with why Manitoba has taken the position that they did in
terms of not taking a firm position before the competition tribunal, which was
doing the hearings on the application by Canadian with their affiliation with
American. Ultimately, after the
hearings, they finally decided that it was not within their jurisdiction to
make a decision on it.
The reason, I rationalized yesterday, why
Manitoba had not put forward a position there‑‑because we have been
meeting with Air Canada, not only myself, but the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and I, T
and T. Everybody has been having
meetings with Canadian, with Air Canada, with the Gemini people. We have tried to look at this thing
objectively.
I got some criticism from a critic
yesterday saying, why have you not taken a position? In return I said, what would you suggest we
do? If we come down on the side of
Canadian, then Air Canada which is a major employer‑‑and I put the
employment figures on the record that are there. If we come down on the side of Canadian, what
happens with Gemini? If we come down
opposing the merger to some degree, what does that do with our Canadian
component here?
* (1610)
I also raised the issue of Air Canada
having affiliated, or buying out the bankrupt Continental. As a result of that, we have already a
commitment of $5 million worth of 727s that are going to be repaired in Winnipeg.
Like I say, I am prepared to answer as
many questions as I can with the member, though I probably did most of them
yesterday. I am not being flippant by
that. I am just saying, we covered the
waterfront pretty well on that, but I am prepared to do that again.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that there was some discussion
last night on that, and I appreciate the minister's comments.
That was not a response to the question
that was asked. The question that was
asked was: In view of the decision, what
will be the impact on Gemini, and has the minister had discussions with Gemini
and Air Canada as to what the job loss will be if in fact the Sabre deal goes
through and Canadian is allowed to pull out of the Gemini Reservation System.
What is going to be the impact of that in
Manitoba?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, when Gemini came and
lobbied the government and myself to not support the Canadian application to
merge with American, the percentage that is in there‑‑I went
through the case history of where it started, where both airlines were
dramatically losing money and where there was talk of merger between Canadian,
Air Canada and the potential impact and job losses at that time. We were very concerned at that time that a
merger of that nature and creating a monopolistic position for one carrier,
that there would be dramatic job losses and probably it would not be beneficial
for the general public if we had that.
At the same time as this thing progressed
and we had the various options developing, first of all the merger was on, then
it was off, then Canadian moved to the American scenario, Air Canada moved to
the Continental one and Gemini, of course, playing a role in this as well. There is a total I think of 720 jobs that are
involved with Gemini, 171 in Manitoba.
If a merger proceeds with Canadian and
American and the booking component‑‑the hosting component from
Canadian is removed from Gemini, which is approximately 25 percent, maybe even
a little less, of the Gemini business‑‑if we removed that one
component from there then we felt there would be a job loss in Gemini to the
extent of maybe 30, 40 jobs but out of the 170 jobs in Manitoba that Gemini
would still be able to function.
I still feel in my mind confident, in
spite of the fact that if that moves ahead that way, that the posting portion
from Canadian is removed from Gemini which is part of the condition that by and
large American has put on there that they join Sabre, that Gemini could still
continue to function. That is a personal
view I have.
Maybe I will just make a few further
comments without having taken an official position on this. If we, for example, allow Canadian to fold,
we would lose approximately 400 jobs. So
we basically have been viewing this and watching it from the sidelines saying
that the least economic and job impact for Manitoba is the position that we
would basically support. A thing, for
example, like the Continental‑Air Canada deal, with having $5‑million
worth of repairs from the 727s that Continental has being done here in
Winnipeg, I think is a positive thing.
I think that if we can, without getting
ourselves into a committed corner somewhere along the line, that if we watch
ourselves, maybe there are components that we can pick up that are going to be
beneficial economically to us, because I think we are an aeronautic central
community where a lot of this kind of activity can take place. So we want to be cognizant of that and see
whether we can capitalize further on these activities without experiencing the
potential anticipated job loss that would have been there had the two lines
amalgamated.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): 5.(a) Salaries $518,400‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $272,800‑‑pass.
Resolution 15.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $791,200 for Highways and Transportation, Transportation
Policy and Research for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
6. Driver and Vehicle Licensing (a)
Management Services (1) Salaries $2,582,300‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $2,592,900‑‑pass.
6.(b) Licensing (1) Salaries $1,576,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,600,700‑‑pass.
6.(c) Safety (1) Salaries $4,567,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,211,400‑‑pass.
6.(d) Manitoba Public Insurance
Corporation Cost‑Sharing Agreement $3,427,700‑‑pass.
6.(e) Transport, Safety and Regulation (1)
Salaries $792,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $271,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 15.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $18,621,500 for Highways and Transportation, Driver and
Vehicle Licensing, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
7. Boards and Committees (a) Motor
Transport Board (1) Salaries $513,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$183,200‑‑pass.
7.(b) Highway Traffic Board (1) Salaries
$188,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $88,600‑‑pass.
7.(c) Licence Suspension Appeal Board and
Medical Review Committee (1) Salaries $191,600‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $93,000‑‑pass.
7.(d) Taxicab Board (1) Salaries $245,000‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $87,100.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do have a question
with respect to the Taxicab Board, and I want to speak briefly about the act
that has come forward, about the changes.
I want to ask the minister what process of consultation he went through
leading up to that, and perhaps I have not been diligent enough to have read
the remarks that were given. I do not
know if he has spoken yet on this bill, but I would like to understand at this
point what process of consultation he went through to come up with the changes
which he has.
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, since 1988 there has
been ongoing consultation with the industry, and as a result of many
applications and hearings that took place before the board, this document was
basically,
By and large, the legislation is intended
to take and allow for the Taxicab Board to be self‑sufficient. At the present time it is being subsidized to
the tune of 50 percent and this will allow us to change‑‑there are
certain regulations that allow increases in rates, but we feel that we want to
expand that, and we had to do that with legislative changes. Beyond that, while we were bringing forward
the act which initially was passed in 1935, there were some changes that we are
adjusting in terms of‑‑I do not know whether the member has looked
at the bill itself, there are four components to it‑‑so basically
we tried to do some of those things as well.
* (1620)
In spite of the comments that were made by
people speaking to the bill the other day after I introduced it to second
reading, individuals attacked the whole concept of what was happening in the
taxicab industry more so than what was basically in the bill, because I still
think that the majority of that bill, aside from the cost recovery component,
is positive for the industry. Under the
bill itself, it will also make provision for any increased cost to the
industry. There is going to be an
increase in fares due to offsets, so that the cab operators are not going to be
out that money.
However, I have also indicated that if
there are further concerns, and the member's colleague, the member for The
Maples (Mr. Cheema) and one of my colleagues are meeting tomorrow on specifics
of some of the concerns. The one
position that I put forward in the House was that I am prepared to take and
look at concerns that they have, if there is anything that is very offensive or
is not in keeping with what we try to do for the industry, realizing that you
have the users as well as the suppliers.
You have to have a blend between those two, but the one component I will
not compromise on is the cost recovery end of it. We want to make sure that it is totally self‑supporting.
That was basically what triggered the bringing forward of the bill.
Mr. Edwards: Was there specifically‑‑I guess
what I am interested in, was there consultation, either through the minister or
through the board, with representatives of the cab drivers themselves? I do not know if they have an association
beyond their association through the cab companies. Was there a consultation with the cab drivers
themselves in the process of coming up with this legislation?
Mr. Driedger: Mr. Acting Chairperson, because that question
was raised and because the Taxicab Board is a quasi‑judicial board,
initially I started to interfere early on in my tenure as Minister of Highways
and Transportation, sort of almost interfered with the activities of the
Taxicab Board and circumvented some of their responsibilities to some
degree. I gradually smartened up and
allowed them to do what they have to basically do, and if I did not like it, I
could change the members on the board.
That is the position that I have taken.
The briefing note that I received from my
Taxicab Board says that consultations have been ongoing with the taxicab
industry in many issues virtually continuously since 1988. The board has conducted the most thorough
hearings and consultations ever with all interested parties.
Now, this is what has come forward to me
in terms of from the board itself, and I am prepared to‑‑based on
the legislation that I brought forward and that some of the concerns that have
been raised, I am prepared because I am the minister bringing the bill forward,
to have further consultation to see whether there are areas that are offensive
that we maybe have to look at changing.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
So aside from what has taken place from
the board's perspective, I am prepared to conduct some of that at the present
time as we move the bill forward. So I
am quite flexible, and I have given that assurance.
Madam Chairperson: 7.(d)(2) Other Expenditures $87,100.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, with respect to the
indication in this Activity Identification, "Conducts public hearings on
matters relating to industry and users," in the past calendar year, what
hearings were held and by whom? Can we
get any details on what that line means?
Mr. Driedger: First of all, the Taxicab Board had made the
decision that they felt‑‑first of all, let me give a little bit of
background. We have 400 cab licences in
the city and that has been that way for many, many years. Just statistically, but I want to embellish on
that, there were 40 board meetings; there were 19 public meetings; there were
12 in‑camera meetings; there were 29 dockets, show‑cause hearings;
and there was special meetings, seven.
That was sort of the activity of the board itself, but the board had
made a decision. As we have been trying
to get the taxicab industry updated, there were difficulties there. It has been difficult for the board and for
myself from time to time.
They were looking at establishing and
allowing, instead of expanding the licences to 400, establish in the hearings
that they had, where there was public input, and establish maybe an elite, a
special category of licences. That was
vehemently opposed by the industry. As
this thing moved forward, further hearings were held. Ultimately, it was challenged in court not
once, but twice.
So there has been ongoing communication
with them. The difficulty and the
responsibility that I have, I suppose, is that I want to see a healthy taxicab
industry out there. At the same time, I
have to be cognizant of the user end of it as well. It cannot just be a one‑way street, and
we have tried to do that in the fairest way possible. I have to say that I have‑‑and
repeat again, I have said this many times‑‑the confidence in my
chairman, Mr. Don Norquay, in spite of the calls for his resignation. He has been relatively conscientious in
trying to address both sides in being fair to the industry. It has been a real challenge for him as well
as myself.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that it is not a difficult‑‑it
is not an easy, I am sorry, area to administer.
Whatever one says about the particular chairperson of the day, I think
it is a difficult job. There are
competing interests at work and many people who get very upset and agitated
about things that occur.
I think the recent introduction of this
legislation proves that. All the more
reason that there needs to be a very thorough consultation process prior to
coming forward with legislation, which, of course, even if people are not
completely happy with what comes forward, it tends to obviously at least make
sure that it does not reach fever pitch.
Madam Chairperson, my question for the
minister, he mentions the number 400 cabs, licences. Does that mean that currently there are 400
operating cabs in the city of Winnipeg?
I guess what I would be interested to know is what percentage of those
are luxury cabs of the 400, and what number of those are equipped or able to
handle handicapped people.
I understand that there are certain cabs
that have‑‑[interjection] I see that the Minister of Urban Affairs
(Mr. Ernst) is Johnny‑on‑the‑spot here. Maybe the Minister of Transportation can
confirm those answers.
What number are available for disabled
Manitobans? Does the minister have any
information on that?
Mr. Driedger: I do not have the precise details here. I will see if I can find it. We have 83 handicapped van business licences,
83 out there. Madam Chairperson, I want
to make sure that I give precise information to the member. We have 83 licences that basically deal with
the handivan licences. Also, under the
new proposal for that elite group that was there, there was supposed to be so
many licences; I think we talked about 40 elite cars. A portion of those were supposed to be elite
handivans for the transportation of handicapped people.
Aside from that, we still have the
handivan transit system that is out there providing this service as well. In fact, I think we have come a long
way. We have a fellow by the name of
Paul Murphy out there who is handicapped himself who does the design of a new
type of a handicapped van that we had demonstrated before the Leg here last
year. Many of them are using that type
of a van.
*
(1630)
In spite of the concern that has been
raised by the industry that feels threatened by the suggestion of the Taxicab
Board to have that elite group up there, certain licences would have to charge
more. So it was not a direct competition
to them.
They feel threatened by this, and there is
some justification because when the trading takes place of licences between
individuals, they paid as high as $60,000, which was a capital investment,
actually almost like a retirement fund.
Any movement in that direction they felt threatened. So we have tried to address it as much as we
can.
I want to say, though, in compliment to
the taxicab industry, that over the last number of years there has been, in my
view, a substantial improvement in the quality of the vehicles in terms of how
the industry is being run‑‑I suppose to some degree feeling the
threat of the elite service coming in.
We still have people that lobby
extensively and say that they want this kind of elite service. There are certain people in our society that
feel more comfortable that way.
Those are the kind of hearings that the
chairman and the board held to establish that.
This was not just a knee‑jerk decision made that we were going to
put in elite cabs. The whole problem was
studied. The hearings were held. Input was put in there. We had the Winnipeg Chamber and others that
were basically coming forward giving input into what they would like to see.
Ultimately, based on all this, these
decisions were made. Then it was challenged in court twice and we had some
difficulty because the elite system had been allocated to Tuxedo Taxi and they
in the meantime went broke. There were
some other difficulties there, so now the whole thing is sort of in limbo again
and further decisions have to be made.
I am just trying to illustrate to the
member some of the ongoing difficulties we have had in the industry there. It has not been very easy for the board to
deal with it. So I want to compliment
them for, in spite of the criticism that has come down, working tenaciously to
try and do that, and at the same time addressing the concerns of the taxicab
industry itself to try and alleviate some of the concerns.
The member can maybe recall when we talked
of the safety shields. You know, when
that element came up, we tried to address it as fairly as we could. We have had other issues that came forward,
and we have tried to be considerate so we do not create further hardship.
Our cab drivers do not make big
money. It is not my intention to intrude
into their privacy as to how much money they make, but really, because it is a
regulated industry, when we set the rates, we have to have some basic
information in terms of what are their costs and what is happening so we cannot
just pull figures out of the air.
There is some sensitivity in that
direction in this bill. So we are going
to be talking with them about this to see whether we can accommodate them.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that answer. It is in limbo right now with the luxury
cabs, the 40 elite cabs, as it were. So
currently, as I understand it, there is no one operating those luxury cabs, the
elite cabs.
Is it anticipated that those licences will
be let again? Do they have to be let as
one package, or will companies be allowed to compete, or individuals purchase
on an individual basis the elite cab licences?
Does the minister have any information as to when that cab service, if
ever, might be resurrected?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me, first of all, give
the official position as it is written down here and then I would like to
further remark on that. That decision,
dated February 14, 1992: The Taxicab
Board increased the number of taxicabs by 43.
The successful applicant for the 32 premium and eight assessable
licences made available by this decision relinquished its right to be issued
the licences. As a result, the Taxicab
Board has invited further applications and will conduct a public hearing to
select the successful applicant or applicants in May of this year.
There is no exclusion. The existing cab companies can also be part
of that application and get involved in it.
So the Taxicab Board is trying to make this application as fair and as
broad as possible.
I basically already made that comment that
a lot of the cab drivers themselves who have licences have upgraded their units
and their way of doing business, so I have been getting compliments in the last
while in terms of the quality of our service in the city here.
It is still the intention of the Taxicab
Board to find an applicant or applicants to take up the licences, the 40 or 43
licences which include eight handicapped‑accessible ones.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, as I understand it, one
must obviously go through some sort of training, qualification, to become a
taxicab driver in the city, and oftentimes people who own the licence are not
the people who drive. They have at least
one or two or three other people who drive the vehicle. Are all drivers required by the board to be
licensed? Maybe the minister can just
indicate what training is required to get that licence.
The second part of my question is: Does the board have any problem, or has it
had, with enforcing that in the sense that cab drivers or others are driving
without the proper qualifications and licensing?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, let me first of all say
that every driver has to be licensed and every driver has to be trained in
certain basics. We have a training
course. Basically part of the
legislation will make provisions so that we can charge for some of that
training.
Now, Tuxedo cab, at the time when they got
the licence, had taken the initiative on their own to charge people, their
trainees, a certain amount of money which they could not legally do. Part of the discussions that took place with
them was that they would have to take and refund some of that money. They were not in a position to do that as an
individual, Tuxedo Taxi.
Yes, they have to be licensed, they have
to be trained and, effective August 1993, the Taxicab Board has extended its
driver training course from 18 to 24 hours of instruction, established an
improved computerized examination unique for each student, retained a more
qualified instructor, added a segment on service excellence to the course and
extended the segment on board regulations.
That is basically the kind of training they go through.
I am scrambling here to try and get the
member as much information as possible.
The Taxicab Board and the Red River
Community College are currently considering the merits of transferring to the
college responsibility for the development, improvement and delivery of the
taxi driver training program currently administered by the Taxicab Board. The proposal being considered would place the
program under the college's Service Industry Division with the course having as
its principal focus excellence of service.
I am just trying to give the member a bit of a feel for how extensive
the training is that takes place so everybody has a good feel for what is going
on.
Mr. Edwards: The second part of my question, and maybe it
is because it was too lengthy a question, I would appreciate the minister's
answer, but the second part was: Is
there a problem? It has come through other sources to me, and I wonder if the
minister can indicate, is there a problem with people who own cabs or others
allowing others to drive them who are not qualified? Has the board had a problem with that, first
of all, complaints? Secondly, what if
anything have they done or can they do to try and enforce it?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not aware of it, but
I will get that information from the chairman of the Taxicab Board. I think that if the member goes through the
legislation that we have before us, there is some provision in terms of‑‑there
used to be some confusion in terms of if somebody created an offence, licensed
or otherwise, who do you fine? Do you
fine the cab, because sometimes you will have three or four drivers to a cab
because they work on a 24‑hour basis?
So is it the individual‑‑they could really not take and fine
or impose any regulations on the individual.
It was on the licence.
So we are changing it so that the cab
would not necessarily be put out of commission, that we would not suspend the
cab if we could find and suspend the driver.
So that is part of the legislation that we are bringing forward to re‑address
some of the areas that were creating some problems for us.
In terms of precise detail, in terms of
how many complaints we have in that direction, I will have to get that. I do not have that here because we had asked
actually our chairman to be available, but he had a function and I am having a
problem having him here at the present time.
* (1640)
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, one of the things that
this indicates in the Objectives is that it is quite clear that this board only
has jurisdiction over cabs in the city of
Mr. Driedger: The member is correct that the Winnipeg
Taxicab Board, of which Mr. Norquay is the chairman, adjudicates only the cabs
in
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, one of the issues that has
come up over the years in this area, as the minister has indicated, and he has
indicated that there has been improvement, is the quality of the vehicles. It is an issue which may seem not extremely
important, but I can tell you for a number of years there it was raised every
time the chamber of commerce came to see us.
It was on their list of important things. They were making the point‑‑the
tourism association and others were always making the point, we have to improve
the quality of cabs.
As a result, I think most Winnipeggers
accepted and probably wanted to move into the luxury, elite cabs. I do not think that was the best answer. My sense of it is, or my view would be,
better to have all cabs reach a higher standard than create this two‑tier
system. That was my own feeling, but
regardless of how that came down for the board, them having made the decision
that there is this elite service, one of my concerns is that the other cabs
would then perhaps deteriorate.
Is the minister saying that in fact the
rest of the cabs have improved, and can he indicate what the Taxicab Board does
to regulate the quality, cleanliness, safety, mechanical sufficiency of the
vehicles?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, first of all, the member asked
whether‑‑that he would have preferred to see just an upgrading of
the taxicabs instead of going to elite service.
Through the process of hearings that took place, it was established at
that time by the board that there was a need or a desire to have that kind of
service there with the understanding that should not impact on the existing cab
business, that there was a certain service that certain people wanted that was
not available at the time. So they felt
justified in moving in that direction.
In terms of the inspections, it has always
been there. We have had taxicab
inspections. The information here, Madam
Chairperson, that in the last year we did 2,682 inspections. That is for 400
licences. So there are ongoing
inspections taking place there, everyday cleanliness inspections, et cetera, et
cetera, and you try and upgrade it. That
has been in place for a long time and it was not always that successful, but
ultimately the industry has responded to these kinds of inspections and I feel
it has been positive.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, the indication is, of
course, that the Taxicab Board investigates and resolves complaints against
taxicab operators. I wonder if the
minister can indicate, give a thumbnail sketch of that aspect of this operation. How many complaints were made? How many resulted in investigations, and is
that data available as to sort of a breakdown as to what became of these
complaints?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I do have that information
here. There were 198 complaints. Fifty‑four of them were resolved, 15
are under investigation and 11 had insufficient information to proceed, 11 were
turned over to the Winnipeg Police and 107 were verbal only with no written
follow‑up. That is the information
that I have here.
Mr. Edwards: Thank you.
That is useful. Now it also talks
about disciplining taxicab operators and drivers, and I notice the minister
indicated that oral warnings were given in 107 cases. What is the procedure? Is it like a normal employment discipline situation
where it is oral, written and then you get into suspensions of licence and
ultimately withdrawal of licence? If so,
does that ever happen? Obviously it did
not happen in this last year. Has that
happened on occasion?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that has happened at
various times, and the process by and large is when there is a complaint and it
is investigated. There is a show‑cause
hearing held before any suspension takes place so that there is a full airing
of the pros and cons of it before this dramatic action is being taken in terms
of suspensions. That is why I at least
find a comfort level in having that show‑cause hearing where an
individual can come and make his position known and then a decision gets made.
Mr. Edwards: Going to page 105 itself and the setting out
of the figures, I notice‑‑and we are on Other Expenditures‑‑that
under Supplies and Services there is Accommodation of $18,500. Now that is curious to me because this board
only has jurisdiction over the city of Winnipeg. That accommodation, which is I think a
significant figure for this board, $18,500, what does that relate to?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, that is the lease that we
pay for the office where they are in.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that. With respect to the Other Operating, I see
here that there is $33,600‑‑well, maybe I am reading this wrong,
then $16,000 for Other Operating under Other Expenditures. What do those figures relate to?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the member had requested
some information earlier, two meetings previously in terms of information, that
he wanted a breakdown of some of‑‑I just wanted to say that we gave
the member a breakdown. I do not know
whether he got the information on that or not, in the case where the member wanted
a breakdown, which I think I supplied.
Incidentally, the $16,000 is basically
office supplies, printing, the printing of licences, paper, et cetera.
* (1650)
Mr. Edwards: Now, I notice that the overall cost in this case
has gone down some $3,000 between '92‑93 and '93‑94. I do not see any change in the numbers of
staff. Has there been any change on the
board in the last year?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, the reduction is as a
result of the reduced workweek implementation.
Mr. Edwards: Any change in the board?
Mr. Driedger: No.
Mr. Edwards: The Estimates book indicates that there is a
liaison established and maintained between the board and the industry. Now, I understand what the minister said
about public hearings and those things which are held. Are there, in addition to that, regular
meetings with the stakeholders in the industry which warrant that phrase
there? Is that a duplicitous phrase or
does it mean something different than the public hearings, which is also
referred to?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I am not quite sure how
the member asks this, but I just want to indicate that on the board we have a
member of the Winnipeg Police force; we have a member from City Council; and we
have members at large by recommendation of appointment. Would the member want to have the names of
the members on the board?
Mr. Edwards: Sure.
Mr. Driedger: The chairman is Mr. Don Norquay; then we have
a Mr. Michael Hill, who is a member; Ms. Surinder Sanan is a member; and then
the City Council appoints a member from the City of
So that basically consists of the
board. The member made reference to the
liaison between the board and the taxicab industry. I am not sure how often they meet or whether
it is the ongoing process, when you consider the amount of inspections that
take place, the amount of hearings that take place or complaints and stuff like
that.
I do not know if they are making reference
to that being the liaison or not, but there is constant, how should I say,
relationship‑‑good, bad or otherwise‑‑between the
industry and the board. The activities
are such that there is constantly activity taking place.
I do not know whether that is what is
meant by this. I would have to question
the chairman on that.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, just to be clear, and
perhaps the chairperson should be‑‑and obviously the minister will
have the opportunity to do that. What I
am asking is, I understand that the board, of course, has its members or
representatives. That is the attempt, that is the idea. I understand that through the normal
processes of the board, the complaints and the other workings of the board,
there is a relationship with people, consumers and operators, et cetera.
What I am asking with respect to that line
is that it seems to indicate to me, by being a separate line it suggested to me
that there was some separate process of liaising with the stakeholders. It says, "Maintains a liaison between
the Board and the taxicab industry, governments and other affected
groups."
What I am asking and perhaps the minister
wants to take it on notice is, is there a specific process, an agenda which is
followed through to bring in on a regular basis, not tied to any specific
question perhaps, but just bring in on a regular basis these groups to discuss
issues generally affecting the industry?
Mr. Driedger: Madam Chairperson, I will have to undertake
to find out whether the board meets on a regular basis where they then deal
with not a prepared agenda, regular board meeting or not. I personally sort of like the idea. I do not know whether this is something where
a member could just come and voice some of their opinions or not. I am not sure. I would like to find out exactly from the
chairman himself as to whether this is how they operate it or whether they do
it just as part of the ongoing process of dealing with complaints and the
regular business.
I am not sure whether they have a specific‑‑as
I read before there were 19 public meetings.
I do not know whether they then are advertised for a specific project or
whether they are just public meetings where anybody can come and have input. I will have to establish that. I would assume that some of them would be
public meetings advertised for specific issues.
There might be some that are basically advertised for just public
hearings, but I am not sure. I have to
confirm that.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate that. If the minister would clarify that it may
well be that of those 19 meetings some were dedicated to simply maintaining and
enhancing the relationship with members in the community. I will look forward to hearing from the minister
on that.
Madam Chairperson, a number of years ago
and since I have been the critic in this area, the issue of safety shields has
come up, and the minister has raised it again as an issue. Of course, it arose, as is often the case
with these issues, out of a tragedy where taxicab drivers have been assaulted,
sometimes killed in very violent and distasteful and unfortunate acts. So we have these issues that come to the
fore, unfortunately, often as a result of those tragic incidents.
What I would ask the minister at this time
is, what is the status of the safety shield initiative? Has the board established a protocol or
guidelines? What is happening on that
issue?
I have not taken a lot of cabs recently,
but the last ones I took I do not think had safety shields, and I do not know
what has happened. Maybe as a follow‑up‑‑and
maybe I am asking a bunch of questions at once‑‑how many cabs
actually do have safety shields, if any?
Mr. Driedger: First of all, the time when the lobby took
place to have safety shields established in cabs there was diversified use
within the industry as well, so some of the members were supportive of it,
others were not. We undertook at that
time to develop a safety shield, a prototype which a manufacturer developed.
By and large, we set out the
requirements. It met the requirements
that had been set out by the Taxicab Board to take and assure the safety of the
passengers as well as the safety of the driver.
We had that prototype developed, and a manufacturer was ready to proceed
on that basis. We had indicated that if
one individual would go forward and have it put in, then it would then be
compulsory for the whole industry.
What happened since that time? Nobody has really come forward and actually
took us up on the offer. In fact, they
have been lobbying extensively among themselves not to proceed with that,
because the moment we have one that is going to have it established and meets
with our requirements, then it would be compulsory to have it installed in
every cab. So they have been backing off
from this. They do not really feel
comfortable with establishing it.
Now, the member is correct that from time
to time we have had tragedies, and it is pretty dangerous. You have to consider that when these
individuals operate on a 24‑hour basis that you deal very often with
unsavoury characters and safety is a factor, though I think that by and large
they were working among themselves in terms of trying to make sure that they
sort of cover for each other. I think the
police also have a major concern in this.
The option is still there. If they want the shields put in, we will make
it the moment somebody puts it in and qualifies in terms of a prototype it is
going to be compulsory. But the industry
itself is not comfortable with it and not prepared to move with that.
Mr. Edwards: I appreciate that answer. I wonder, and I did not hear the minister
answer, if he can give any indication as to how many cabs actually have taken
that up and have safety shields. Secondly, I wonder, has there been an
exploration of the alternatives to that in terms of safety?
One of the things I recall at the time
coming up was that there was a special kind of mirror. You see, one of the problems, and an obvious
problem when driving a cab with, as the minister says, some unsavoury
characters in the back seat is that the driver is facing forward and an
attacker may come from behind.
At the time, I remember industry people
saying, well, the fallback would be some sort of mirror so that the person
would at least be able to watch the road and have a clear view of the back
seat. Is that not something which has
been discussed or unworkable?
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m., time for private
members' hour. Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
* (1700)
Mr. Speaker: The hour being 5 p.m., it is time for private
members' hour.
IN SESSION
Committee
Report
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): The
Committee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the
same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member
for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS' BUSINESS
DEBATE ON
SECOND READINGS‑‑PUBLIC BILLS
Bill 200‑The
Child and Family Services Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Also, standing in the name of the honourable
member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans). [agreed]
Bill 202‑The
Residential Tenancies Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale), Bill 202 (The Residential Tenancies Amendment
Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur la location a usage d'habitation), standing in
the name of the honourable member for
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 203‑The
Health Care Records Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for St. Johns (Ms. Wasylycia‑Leis), Bill 203 (The Health Care
Records Act; Loi sur les dossiers medicaux), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Emerson (Mr. Penner).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
Bill 205‑The
Ombudsman Amendment Act
Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable
member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak), Bill 205 (The Ombudsman Amendment Act; Loi
modifiant la Loi sur l'ombudsman), standing in the name of the honourable
member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer).
An Honourable Member: Stand.
Mr. Speaker: Stand?
Is there leave that this matter remain standing? [agreed]
SECOND
READINGS‑PUBLIC BILLS
Mr. Speaker: Are we proceeding with second reading of
public bills? Are we proceeding with
Bill 208? No, okay. Are we proceeding with Bill 209? No, okay.
Are we proceeding with Bill 211?
No, okay. Are we proceeding with
Bill 214? No, okay.
PROPOSED
RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid), that
WHEREAS the provincial government is considering
a proposition to construct a pipeline in order to divert water from the
Assiniboine River to deliver it to the Pembina Valley; and
WHEREAS the water diversion may adversely
affect the residents of the cities of Brandon and Portage la Prairie and surrounding
areas by threatening the water supply; and
WHEREAS the water supply for farms along
the Assiniboine River near Portage la Prairie could be threatened with a future
shortage of water; and
WHEREAS the Assiniboine River crosses
provincial boundaries, which could have an impact on Manitoba.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the
Legislative Assembly of Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider
participating in a basin‑wide, federal‑provincial review of the
possible impacts of the Assiniboine River Diversion proposal, with the
condition that this review is conducted by an independent body; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly
make a request to the provincial government to put the project on hold until
all studies concerning the economic and environmental costs have been released
to the public.
Motion presented.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Speaker, this resolution that we have put
forth, when we did put it through and since, there have been some changes that
have occurred to the original plan, as stated by the Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative.
Mr. Speaker, the project itself, I think
since we have been here, has been a tremendous concern to a lot of people,
concern in the way that there has not been in fact in people's minds proper and
full consultations with all the residents and all the communities within
southern Manitoba that are going to be affected by this proposed diversion.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity
since September 1990, to travel in the areas and speak to people in the areas,
and attend some meetings‑‑people voicing their concerns about the
proposal. I have met and sat with people
who are in support of this proposal.
Now we have questioned the ministers in
the House here with respect to the Clean Environment Commission hearings. We have requested that the government not
proceed with this until a full federal implication and federal study on the
plan be brought forth to really no response from the government, and I would
wonder why. Now we have finally received
the fact that there is going to be CEC hearings and the dates have been put
through in June. What we find out now
with this is that this government, for whatever reason, has decided to have the
hearings at a time when it is not conducive to the people who are going to be
affected by this.
You have questions in the House with
regard to this to the Minister of Environment.
You have questions by people within the irrigation associations who are
affected by this. You have farmers who
say, why now, why at a time from June 14 to 30th? Mr. Speaker, why not include
everyone that it is documented that this is going to affect? It is going to affect the city of
Winnipeg. Are there going to be any
hearings in the city of Winnipeg? I
doubt it.
According to this minister, he feels that
the people who are involved with this should go to Portage la Prairie, because
other people are coming to Portage la Prairie.
I mean that does not necessarily make a whole lot of sense to me. I feel that the effect that the diversion could
have on the city of Winnipeg‑‑and you may say, well, why a rural
member being concerned with the city of Winnipeg water problem when it comes to
the Assiniboine Diversion. Well, Mr.
Speaker, it not only affects the city of Winnipeg. It will affect the city of Selkirk.
In speaking to my councils within my own
constituency, the R.M. of Bifrost, the LGD of Armstrong, have also grave
concerns that there will be an impact on their aquifers and their water
supplies in the future. Now I would say
that people presently are saying, well, this is not going to affect down the
road. Well, I think that is the concern that all people have, Mr. Speaker, is
not the today situation that the Assiniboine conversion is going to implicate. What it is going to do is concern the future
of the water supply for the province of Manitoba and for those living along the
Assiniboine River.
You have groups from within the city of
Brandon, groups from within the city of Portage la Prairie who before the
changes that were brought in some time in February to the original proposal
were expressing grave, grave concerns as to their supply, as to how they are
going to obtain and retain water if this diversion goes through in the near
future, Portage la Prairie. Now we have
the fact that the changes, they are saying, well, we have changed it now. The original proposal, why was it
changed? Mr. Speaker, I tend to wonder
what forces brought on this government to change all of a sudden. Did they feel that they were getting too much
pressure from within the system? Did
they feel that perhaps they were on line with a project that without the full
co‑operation and the full consultation from all parties that they were
thinking perhaps we have made a mistake?
* (1710)
So let us change it. Let us make half of them happy, the ones who
were unhappy, and let us make the rest further be more unhappy. That is not very good English, but I
apologize for that. That is a sense that
I get, and it is a sense that we get from the people in the communities. Sure, perhaps some have been appeased as to
the direction that they want to take now.
But another aspect of this I would like to
make a point of is saying before the studies were done, why within the studies
did we not get any detailed plans, Mr. Speaker, for conservation of water? Are those plans for the conservation of the
existing supplies, where are they? Waste‑‑I
do not want to say that we here in Winnipeg or Interlake or anywhere are
wasting water, but I would say that it is an aspect of the situation that
should be gravely addressed, seriously addressed.
Before we start spending millions of
dollars on pipelines, diversions, weirs, dams and whatnot, I would think that
they should have seriously looked at the fact that perhaps there is a way to conserve
and preserve the natural flow of water that we have now and to preserve the
local usage of water. I would think that
before anyone would want to put a multimillion dollar project within the system
basically taking water and draining water away from an ongoing system, take a
look at your own back yard. See how you
can preserve the system. See how you can
utilize better what you have within your own aquifer, within your own system in
a community.
Mr. Speaker, getting back to the
consultation and to the meetings and that, I would like the Minister of
Environment (Mr. Cummings) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)‑‑you
know, they claim that because of the meetings that are forthcoming that it is
sufficient enough. Well, perhaps in
their eyes it is, but in the eyes of the farmers, the eyes of residents, the
eyes of the irrigators, the eyes of the communities, it is not enough. We have asked and we have asked for
commissions to hold hearings within the province on this issue. Finally we get it, and finally, as I have
mentioned, they put it at a time where who is going to be able to attend this
hearing? How are they going to be able
to make their presentations on such basically short notice with the times of
the upcoming seeding situation? Farmers
are just not going to be able to come and make their presentation to the Clean
Environment Commission and really feel that they are doing the job properly.
Mr. Speaker, we have here a situation
where perhaps are they really trying to push this through now with the new
changes that they have proposed? Are
they trying to push this through without listening to people? Are they trying to push this through without
listening to the former member for Portage la Prairie, who has spoken up in
House, and who again speaks out as a citizen and a concerned farmer to want and
to ask that this government change the hearing times, give everyone an
opportunity to be able to make full and proper presentations?
Is this government afraid, Mr. Speaker, of
hearing all of the communities? If they
are, then perhaps they heard and listened to certain people earlier with the
original proposal that had created the changes they brought forth.
Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my honourable
colleague for Radisson and others will deal with the environmental conditions
that this diversion could, in fact, bring upon the communities that are being
affected by the diversion.
Mr. Speaker, my point on this is that I
say let us deal with the proper sense of consultation. Let us listen to the past member for Portage
la Prairie, Mr. Connery. Let us listen
to the farmers within the area. Let us
listen to the Portage irrigators association requesting that they be allowed
more time, that the hearings be set at a later date, in the fall, when the
people can come and be there in full attendance and have their say, or is this
government not willing to do that?
If they do not want to hear what the
presentations are going to be and they are not going to like to hear what the
presentations are going to say, then they, in turn, will say, well, let us
change it again. The reality of it is
this government is not going to let it go away.
This government is going to continue, in one way or another, trying to
divert the water from the Assiniboine River and continue to perhaps impose a
system on people that do not want it and do not need it.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have a problem with
the fact that communities need quality water for consumption.
An Honourable Member: It is a right.
Mr. Clif Evans: It is their right. I have no problem with that, Mr. Speaker.
Again, is this the way to go for it? What is going to come out of it? Is it a matter of just saying, well, we are
dry; we have absolutely no water in our aquifers and we need water for consumption,
for domestic situations? I do not have a
problem with that.
We have to say to this government‑‑and
I would request, Mr. Speaker, that this government support the resolution that I
have put forth, especially the part where I ask this Assembly to put the
project on hold until all the studies concerning the economic environmental
costs have been released to the public.
We can only do that if the government will allow the people due time and
process to be able to hear exactly what the people that are going to be most
affected, the people from Brandon, from Portage, south, Selkirk‑‑are
going to be affected by this situation.
Let us not waste millions of dollars, Mr.
Speaker, on a proposal that 40‑50 years down the line is going to affect
the lives of our young people and the future for our young people to be able to
have access to clean water, access to water in general and be able to survive
with the proper supply and a clean supply of water.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing
other comments on this resolution. I
know that the government at the time will support this resolution. Thank you.
Mr. Paul Edwards (St.
James): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to
speak to this resolution put forward by the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans). I think it is timely, and I
think it is a very important issue to address in this House. I will look forward to members from the
governing party coming forward, and in particular I would like to hear from the
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister).
I would like to hear from that member who was elected, and the debate
revolving around that election had a lot to do with this issue.
I was in Portage la Prairie on a number of
occasions in the course of that campaign.
This issue was raised, not by us, it was raised by the people in the
homes in Portage la Prairie. They were asking questions about this issue. I know that the current member has some very,
very strong opinions on this issue, and he usually lobs them across the
floor. It is tough for him, I think, to
get the floor from his colleagues. They
do not seem to be willing to allow him to speak, but I think this is the one
issue that he has an obvious interest in and has some opinions, made them part
of his campaign, and I would welcome his comments.
* (1720)
Let me just be clear that, Mr. Speaker,
with some possible changes in wording that I might tinker with on this resolution,
but leaving those aside, I have no problem with this resolution. In fact, I
agree that the provincial government should participate in a basin‑wide
federal‑provincial review of the impacts, and it, of course, should be an
independent body. I also agree that the
provincial government should be requested to not commence construction until
they know the answers.
Now I might add to that, Mr. Speaker, that
I believe the various stakeholders, the groups involved in this issue, in my
estimation, having read the documents that have come forward from the groups
involved, have not adequately considered the alternatives to deal with the
water shortage which is talked about as the problem in the southern parts of
the province. So I am not convinced that
the options, all of the options, have been canvassed.
Let me give you an example of why I think
we are right to question that. The going
gets tough. There are a few negative
comments on the editorial pages coming out of the people of Portage la Prairie
into the Daily Graphic. There is a
little bit of backlash from some of the people who were not expected to
backlash. All of a sudden, there is the
member for Portage la Prairie, beats a path to the Daily Graphic office, out to
hold a press conference. Well, we have
it solved. It is all changed. We are
going to build a weir. The plans that
have been floated for two years changed.
Not a problem, we can build a weir.
It will not affect the people of Portage la Prairie.
Well, Mr. Speaker, listen. The fact is all of the options have not been
considered. Proof of that is that the
position of the government can change overnight and did. The truth is that I met, I believe it was two
years ago‑‑a committee came up and the mayor of Winkler was leading
[interjection] Yes, Mr. Wiebe‑‑Henry Wiebe. Mr. Wiebe was there with some other people,
and they came to the various caucuses and put forward their plan and their
problem and their position.
They were questioned. The question, as yet, has not been answered
and has been clarified in fact by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns)
in his prior comments on this issue. I
questioned him at the time, and I remember saying, you know, this is not for
domestic use, is it? This water that you
want to take, it is not for domestic use because we all know that under the
water resources plan and strategy, that is the highest use of water. They were adamant‑‑oh, yes, it
is. We do not have enough water in
Winkler and Morden and in that area to satisfy domestic use. It qualifies as the top water priority;
therefore, the project should go ahead.
Mr. Speaker, I believe it was about three,
four months or thereabouts after that that new irrigation contracts were let to
Kroeker Farms, that I believe have most of their property out in the Winkler‑Morden
area, and Murta Farms. All of a sudden,
the point is, new irrigation contracts were being let at the same time as we
were hearing from the representatives from those areas that the use was for
domestic use. It did not make sense.
So we got a hold of them and said, what
gives? How come these things are
happening, and they seem very contradictory?
Of course, the reality is‑‑and I do not mind dealing with it
on this basis as an issue of economic development, but let us call it what it
is. Let us not bandy about that somehow
this water is needed for the primary use of drinking water. No doubt water is short in those areas. There is no question.
I grew up in part of the Palliser
triangle, Swift Current, Saskatchewan‑‑a very, very dry community,
let me tell you. I grew up rationing
water. You do not get to water your
lawn, and if you do, it is one day a week.
You know, everything was rationed and that was a way of life. I understand the hardships that imposes, and
I am sympathetic to those hardships.
Mr. Speaker, I want the people who are
promoting this to go on the record about what it is they want. I believe, in my experience, having followed
this issue for a number of years, that what they are talking about is economic
development. To have the kind of
development that they think they can get, they need water. I accept that. I am prepared to deal with this issue on that
basis. Then we understand why they need
it, and then we can have a rational, reasoned debate. We cannot if people are not being absoutely
forthright about what they are trying to do.
So with all respect to that committee that
came a number of years ago, I believe that there was a disservice done to the
cause simply because I do not believe that they were completely frank. I do not claim that there was any intention
to mislead, but I do not believe that they were completely frank with the
caucuses‑‑well, I only sat in our caucus‑‑about what
was the goal of this.
I welcome the opportunity to speak again
to those representatives, because I have checked my notes from that meeting on
occasion in the past. I have had
occasion to do that, and the issue and the brief was there that it was for
domestic use. I am not convinced that it
was. I will tell you another thing. Most people in Portage la Prairie are
convinced that this is not about domestic use, it is about irrigation.
The former member for Portage la Prairie
was pretty clear about that when he was in this House. He was pretty clear about that in the last
campaign in Portage la Prairie. I think
that had a lot to do with why he chopped off the bottom half of his sign that
had Mr. Filmon's name on it. I remember,
I was there that day in Portage la Prairie.
I remember the day he did that, and he was pretty clear that now there
were other personal issues, I understand, but he came from a position of self‑interest
and he was clear about that. He was a
market farmer and he did irrigate and he did not like the idea of a lot of
water that he might use or others might use in his business going south.
I remember him asking more than one
question in this House, unannounced, of the minister on this very issue. Let me say, despite the fact that obviously
all opposition members look with glee when we see the look of surprise on the
Premier's face when one of his backbenchers asks a question, but I gained a lot
of respect for the former member for Portage la Prairie that he would stand up
for his constituents and risk obviously some dissension within his own caucus.
Maybe he did not have a lot to risk. Maybe there was not much of a relationship
left by that time but, on the other hand, he did it and he put his constituents
and their concerns, what he felt that they were, on the line.
Now the current member, of course, has a
totally different approach. His
approach, as far as I understand it, is:
Do not worry about it, it is no problem, send it down. We are still going to have lots left. This is part of the master plan.
But his fall‑back position when he‑‑
An Honourable Member: But I might get into cabinet.
* (1730)
Mr. Edwards: Well, yes, I believe getting into the cabinet
is certainly one of his goals, but I do not cast that as the only goal.
What I say is, what was interesting to me
was last week, in Portage la Prairie in the Daily Graphic, there he was holding
a press conference saying: Well, okay,
we might lose a little water, but do not worry, we have changed the plan. We are going to build a weir. It is not the old plan. We are going to have a new plan.
So he has Plan B and maybe Plans C and D
and, I sense, some desperation to get this thing through, and that makes me
very nervous. One of the things I
appreciate about the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), and I will look
forward to hearing from him today, is, he usually does not beat around the bush
about what is going on, and what is going on is an attempt to have economic
growth through irrigation.
Now, we have this huge problem in
Manitoba. We have lots of water. It is not in the right place to use it for
the economic growth that people in southern Manitoba seek. We have to get some water to different areas
to use it, and I understand that.
Mr. Speaker, that is a real concern and, believe
me, we want, I want McDonald's to get every french fry in the world from
Manitoba. I want Carnation to come and
build big plants. I want McCain's to
build big plants. We want that
investment, we want those jobs, we want that growth, obviously, not at any
cost.
We have to be reasonable. We have to be prepared, of course, to
accommodate people where we can, but we have to know before we invite and
before we make agreements with people to build those plants and we give them the
guarantees of water supply what we are sacrificing. We may ultimately at the end of the day agree
that the sacrifice is worth it. We may
say that. But we have to know what we
are sacrificing. You have to know first
exactly what you are giving up.
It is not a partisan position. Why would anyone enter into a deal, enter
into an arrangement, without knowing what they were giving up? You have to know it first. The way to know is to get all of the facts
and hear out the people who have concerns and are coming forward and want to
talk about this. What is wrong with
that? Yes, it takes a little time. Yes, it is going to cost a little money, but
it is not only the responsible thing to do‑‑environmentally and
socially and economically it is responsible‑‑it is prudent.
This government claims that they are
financial fiscal wizards. Wizards, I
think, was used in the paper this week.
The wizards. I prefer the sorcerer,
but the wizards, as the Free Press called them this week. You know, are they really? They want to rush into this. They want to rush into Conawapa. They rushed into Rafferty‑Alameda. They do not care. Where do I sign?
I remember members of this government in
the fall of 1988 saying do not worry about Rafferty‑Alameda. Do not worry.
We are covered. Ottawa is
negotiating for us. We do not have a
problem.
Well, within a year, the Minister of
Environment stands up and says that the Rafferty‑Alameda project was not
handled correctly, was a disgrace for environmental control in this province.
Mr. Speaker, all I ask is that, from the
government and the promoters of this project, there be honesty and
forthrightness about all of what is being planned now and in the future in this
project. The second thing I ask is for
this government to think before they act. That is not an unreasonable thing. That is not a partisan issue. That is logic, and I am asking them to do
that. Thank you.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Speaker, I am anxious to speak to this
resolution. I have a number of concerns
about this project. I want to start off
by talking about this project as I think it is going to be the second travesty
and environmental tragedy this government will leave as a legacy, if their
plans to go forward with the Assiniboine Diversion go ahead as they would like
to see it.
Of course, we know that the first travesty
was the construction of the office complex at Oak Hammock Marsh, where they are
choosing to put sewage and concrete into a wildlife management area and call it
environmental education and water wetland conservation.
The important reason I mention this
project is that it was a good practice for showing how this government could
manipulate an environmental assessment.
Now we are seeing, as the court case will go forward, the way that
reports were lost and information was left out of the hearings. This project had legislation changed so it
could go through and push the development through, so that we can get the
building up before court cases are finished being heard and that kind of thing.
Well, the same strategy is being used on
the Assiniboine Diversion, Mr. Speaker.
We are seeing that, for example, oh, they have got one project in the
books, and there is a very thick environmental assessment report for that
project which is released. You know, it
was really difficult for those of us that were concerned about this project to
get our hands on that initial report.
Then, within a couple of weeks, a very thin addendum was introduced.
Do you know what? That addendum was actually brought to my door
by an individual working for the proponent, the proposer of the diversion. I wanted to ask that fellow some questions,
and he was not really that interested in answering questions, about why was it
that I could not get my hands on the first one, but they are bringing the
second addendum to my door.
As the opposition critic, that is very
unusual that this government or anything it supports would even come to my
mailbox, let alone hand‑delivered to my office. So it just goes to show how unanxious they were
for us to get our hands and see the initial proposal diverting the water to the
Boyne River, and how anxious they were in appeasing Portage la Prairie to hand
deliver the addendum, which I would say is somewhat illegal to change a
development in the middle of an environmental assessment. So that is the first thing that they have
done.
* (1740)
Another thing that they have done is, we
have had some of the bogus projections for population growth to demand the
water in the Carman and Winkler area, and we have seen some creative arithmetic
that they have used in trying to justify this project. Now, most recently we have seen what they
have done with setting the hearings for a project that is going to have
downstream effects for the largest centre in the province, and there is no
hearing in that centre. There are no
hearings anywhere where there are going to be downstream concerns.
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that this is
only the beginning of the irregularities that we are going to see in the
assessment process with respect to the Assiniboine Diversion, because the race
is on to get this thing up and going quickly before the federal election. I think that there is as much federal
interest in this project as there is provincial interest. Some people have suggested to me to explore
the relationship between one Mr. Charlie Mayer, the member for Emerson (Mr.
Penner) and the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) and to look at the relationship
between the benefactors of the Assiniboine Diversion, looking at the contributors
to the Conservative Party, particularly the campaigns for those people that
have just been mentioned.
Now we have been calling for and this
resolution asks for a basin‑wide review on this project, a federal basin‑wide
review, which is only what the law mandates.
The law mandates, under federal law you have an environmental assessment
for something that has transboundary navigable waters, which this project has.
So one would think that even one trigger would mean that we would have a
federal environmental assessment. This
project also has some, I think the figure now is, $63 million of funding, and a
large proportion of that from the federal level, which is the second trigger
for why there should be a federal environment review, which would be far more
difficult for the government of Manitoba, as we have seen before with the Oak
Hammock Marsh project in particular, to fiddle with.
The third criteria to trigger a federal
environment review would be aboriginal lands.
Now, since the addendum I have not had long discussions with the chief
at Long Plain Reserve, but I know that they are very concerned about how this
project is going to affect their land claims and their reserve. They already on the Long Plain Reserve have
to bring in water in the summer because of the dry conditions on their
reserve. They bring drinking water into
their reserve, and I know that they have serious concerns.
All of those criteria for having a federal
review are being ignored, and there is an interesting relationship between this
government and the government in Ottawa and to Brian Mulroney. It would be
interesting to know who is more interested in having this project go
through. Maybe as we go through the
process of assessing it, more of that will become clear, but the fact remains
there has to be some agreement made now that it will not have a federal review,
but it is going to have this Clean Environment Commission review only at the
Manitoba level.
We have gone through a number of calls for
why do we need to have all of this money spent on a diversion? We have had members opposite talk about how
it is for the water supply, drinking water supply, potable water supply in that
southern area of Manitoba, but it is interesting that now this week we see
there is another irrigation scheme going on that is going to reservoir water
for that very area. We know that they
have also given out irrigation permits, but all the while they will go on and
maintain that this project is for drinking water, even though it is very similar
to the first section of the south Hespeler report, which was explicitly for
irrigation and not for domestic water‑‑human consumption.
So maybe it is, we will give them the
benefit of the doubt that this is going to be used for drinking water in that
southern Manitoba area, but then what they are planning to do is to continue to
deplete the aquifer in that area for irrigation. They are going to continue
doing that without investing in the infrastructure that would conserve the most
amount of water possible first.
But getting back to the reason for all of
this, the reason we have all these irrigation schemes in the first place is
even the former member for Portage la Prairie went on to talk about how it is
all for long french fries. It is
interesting that we can have companies like McCain's which can require that all
the potatoes grown for their production are going to use irrigation. We can gear our entire budgeting,
irrespective of the effects that it is going to have on the environment, and
set up these massive schemes all to satisfy this kind of corporate policy for
something like long french fries.
I do not know if long french fries taste
better. I do not know if long french
fries are more nutritious. Why do we
need long french fries? This is so often
what happens with corporate policy. If
it is the way, I would suggest to you of reducing the capabilities of the small
farmer and tying them into the large irrigation schemes, tying them into the
large food processing companies, and through market forces tying their hands.
I forget the fellow's name, but he is with
the Rural Development Institute, and he also said that this project, this
Assiniboine Diversion, is also about guaranteeing a supply of irrigated
potatoes for these large food processing companies.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Health): Is that wrong?
Ms. Cerilli: The Minister of Health says, is that wrong? Well, that is a very interesting and somewhat
naive question to show the attitude to economic and social justice of this
minister, that we should use public funds and structure our entire natural
environment in Manitoba to satisfy the corporate interests of one company.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to touch on some
of the larger problems and larger concerns with respect to the Assiniboine
Diversion. I would like the members
opposite, if they have not had a chance, to look up their fearless leader's
Masters thesis, because it was interesting‑‑
An Honourable Member: Master plan.
Ms. Cerilli: Oh, the master plan. It could be called that, because it is
interesting to note that this project is very similar to the Masters thesis of
the Premier (Mr. Filmon) when he was an engineering student, and that was to
divert water from northern Manitoba and northern Saskatchewan to the U.S. for
sale. This is why it is such a large
concern and why I think that the federal government is also so interested in
this, because they simply see our natural resources as something to exploit for
short‑term profit similar to what they are doing with irrigation, not
considering the long‑term effects on soil.
I would say that the attitude to water
sale‑‑we have asked ministers in this government to give us their
government policy on water sale, which they have not done, and that is one of
the big concerns with this project, Mr. Speaker, that it is going to set up
Canada's first close‑to‑the‑border‑of‑the‑U.S.
pipeline to transfer water to the U.S.
We know that under NAFTA and under the trade agreements water is not
protected. This is done irrespective.
We know that there are a number of areas
in the United States that are horrifically overpopulated, where the density in
their cities are forcing them to have to ration water for a long number of
years, and that there are a number of communities in the United States
pressuring different regions of Canada to transfer water to the U.S. This, again, would be done without attention
to ensuring that there are proper water conservation programs put in place before
these massive water transfer schemes are developed.
The other thing that is really important
to talk about with respect to the Assiniboine Diversion is putting it in
context with the larger budget, Mr. Speaker.
I would just in closing say that when people talk about where is the
money going from this Conservative government, these are the kind of projects
that it is going to rather than to‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
* (1750)
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): Mr.
Speaker, I want to say to you with all the conviction that I can muster that it
is my belief that this resolution is out of order.
I will attempt to bring it to order with
an amendment upon the conclusion of my few comments, but I would further say
that I will not be offended if the eloquence and the persuasiveness of my
comments are such that you find the amendment out of order as well, because,
Mr. Speaker, it is out of order and for the following reason.
We have a process which is constantly
being denigrated by members opposite. We
have a clean environment act born in the bowels of the New Democratic Party,
improved over the years by this minister and this government, and they
participated in those amendments. Is
that not a fact?
Now, under the clean environment act it
says very clearly that if somebody wishes to do something, anything, they have
to make a proposal according to the act, and then that proposal finally finds
its way to another independent body known as the Clean Environment Commission.
That Environment Commission then examines
it this way and that way, holds public hearings over here and over there and
everywhere and then either approves it and licenses it or does not. That surely is the process. [interjection]
That is the act. That is the process, right? So you are telling me that you do not like
the process. You are telling me that you
want us to appeal the Clean Environment Commission. You want us to appeal the clean environment
act. You want us to simply act as we
act. That is what you are saying by the
constant attacks on anything that appears before the Clean Environment
Commission.
So, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that the
Assembly should now pass a formal resolution interfering against the very
mandate of a piece of legislation that this Assembly has passed, the clean
environment act; that this Assembly should interfere in the workings and
carrying out of the mandate of the Clean Environment Commission, a body created
by this Assembly; that it should interfere by steering, by telling them what to
do.
That is gross interference. You talk about ministerial interference. You talk about governmental
interference. You talk about special interest
interference. This is gross interference
on the part of this Legislature in telling the Clean Environment Commission
what to do and what not to do and when to do it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest for those
reasons I would not be offended if you chose to find all of this out of order,
but I leave that, Monsieur, in your very capable hands, Monsieur President. You know that my esteem is unending for your
fairness in these matters, that I will leave that to your better judgment.
Now, to the issue, and it is an important
issue, for 30 years, for all of those 30 years, south‑central Manitoba
has looked for water. There have been
many schemes involving a twin set of dams on the Pembina River on this side of
the border, and on the other side of the border, the Pembilier projects. Some of you may or may not remember those.
In fact, one of my last functions in an
outgoing government in 1969 was to visit the then Honourable Mitchell Sharp,
the federal minister of the Pearson, no, Trudeau government already. In 1969,
the Trudeau government, Mitchell Sharp, I was taking a delegation of Pembina
water‑‑you know, people, the same kind of people. There was a Mr. Friesen from the Friesen
printing house from Altona, and Mr. Wiebe already was on the scene.
We went to appeal to them through their
regional development projects to help assist us in the construction of two dams
on the Pembina River as one resolution to finding water for this particular
region. Since then there have been
different schemes that have been studied.
In the last two and a half years, some very specific work was done by
PFRA engineers, by the community there themselves, the 15 municipalities that
have gotten together to form a co‑operative representing some of our most
progressive towns in the south‑central part of the province.
They have recommended different
things. They have recommended, among
other things, a weir on the Red River as a partial solution to this. In their best judgment, aided and abetted by
the best engineers this country can produce, the very best engineers with
respect to water hydrology that this country produced proposed this scheme.
This is what is being put before the Clean
Environment Commission. The Clean
Environment Commission will have the opportunity to examine‑‑it is
a quasi‑judicial process. They
will bring these very engineers and other people and proponents to provide
expert testimony, and they will determine then whether or not this scheme is a
worthwhile project to further.
Mr. Speaker, honourable members have a
paranoia about the word "irrigation."
I do not. I want to assure
honourable members one thing‑‑and look at the twisted logic on the
part of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli).
If the proponents of a scheme make a one‑hundredfold
or two‑hundredfold, a thousandfold improvement in this scheme‑‑right,
the original proposal was for open‑channel waters into the Boyne, as she
correctly points out, and then on to the Stephenfield reservoir.
That, in the first instance, allowed for
inefficiencies of that valuable resource because you lose a lot through
evaporation, allows for additional problems in terms of possible pollutants
entering into the water resource in that open‑channel way. So the proponents decide to go to an all‑pipe
system providing the citizens of Portage la Prairie‑‑and the people
of Selkirk should be so lucky.
The people of Portage la Prairie are
getting an ultramodern water treatment plant for zilch out of this deal. That is why the Portage council supports and
has moved unanimously to support this proposal.
I know the economics of my short‑fry,
long‑fry member for Radisson does not maybe appreciate that, but you do
not use treated piped water for irrigation.
You simply cannot do that.
An Honourable Member: The potatoes do not like it.
Mr. Enns: The potatoes do not grow long when you use
that kind of water.
Mr. Speaker, the proposal in itself has
been immeasurably improved but, again, that is not for me to say. That is for the Clean Environment
Commissioners to determine as they examine the project.
It would be foolish on the part of this government
not to be extremely sensitive to the downstream users. Why would we for one moment want to
jeopardize the 600,000 people living in the city of Winnipeg, the people living
between here and Portage with any reductions in water supplies? Again, that is for the very engineers who
built the Shellmouth structure, who built that reservoir of water known as Lake
of the Prairies.
If they say that they can so manipulate
the stream that they can, in fact, improve the minimal flows in Winnipeg and in
Headingley and in Elie and in St. Francois with this scheme, then they will
have to demonstrate that.
Mr. Speaker, they have some background
about making that assumption. In 1978 a
problem existed along the La Salle River. The communities, Sanford, Domain, the
R.M. of Macdonald, asked the province to pump water from the Assiniboine into
the La Salle River to augment the flow of the La Salle during the low
periods. We did that for several years. Then I asked my engineers, well, gee, doing
this on an ad hoc basis, why do we not just put in a permanent diversion, which
we did, and it has worked beautifully ever since.
They actually have licensed twice the
amount of water that this proposal calls for.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, one of the conditions that the Clean Environment
Commission may well say is, no to the proponents, no to the government, no to
the Minister of Natural Resources, you cannot have any more water out of the
Assiniboine River, period, just take half of what Macdonald is getting on the
La Salle.
That is entirely a condition that they may
impose. They may impose other conditions
on the licence should they feel so inclined, that they will approve the
licensing of that proposal only if we can demonstrate and only if a government
will commit itself to the maintenance of supply.
Surely, gentlemen, honourable members, if
we could supply such a vital resource as water to this vibrant part of our
province, then that is in all our interests.
There are economic studies that say that
this diversion of waters is the equal of one Inco and three Repaps in terms of
job creations in that region in the next decade.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. When this matter is again before the House,
the honourable minister will have five minutes remaining.
The hour being 6 p.m., this House now
adjourns and stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. tomorrow (Wednesday).