Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call for second reading Bills 31, 32 and 33.
SECOND READINGS
Bill 31--The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2)
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), that Bill 31, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act (2) (Loi no 2 modifiant le Code de la route), be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to introduce Bill 31. This is the second of two bills that my department is bringing forward this session to amend The Highway Traffic Act. The amendments contained in this bill cover three main issues; first is medical standards, second is vehicle safety inspections and third is residency requirements.
First a few comments on the medical standards that are being amended in The Highway Traffic Act. This first issue relates to the removal of medical standards for drivers from regulation and the creation of medical guidelines administered by the Registrar of motor vehicles. Some time ago, my department initiated a process to revise the medical standards as they were becoming out of date. In the course of that exercise, they received advice from legal counsel that the standards could be more appropriately dealt with under guidelines. While some conditions such as poor eyesight can be specifically measured, the point at which many other conditions would affect a person's ability to safely operate a motor vehicle cannot be precisely quantified.
Madam Speaker, I think most of my honourable colleagues will agree with me when I say that people are not all affected in the same way by a particular medical affliction. Because of these varying reactions, the Registrar requires the flexibility in order to review each situation independently and then take such action as is appropriate given the nature and severity of the condition. For these reasons, the requirement to prescribe medical standards and regulations is being repealed and medical guidelines will be established under the Registrar's policy. This will provide the Registrar with flexibility to assess many medical conditions on a case-by-case basis. The guidelines in most cases will be less restrictive than the current regulations that we must administer. The revised medical policy will be based on current Canadian Medical Association guidelines and the National Safety Code medical standards for drivers of commercial vehicles.
The second item that we are amending in this Highway Traffic Amendment (2) is vehicle safety inspections. This second matter under this bill will relate to the changes that are necessary to various vehicle safety inspection provisions.
My department has legislation in place to require all vehicles privately sold to undergo a vehicle inspection prior to that vehicle being registered and the legislation will come into force on July 1, 1995.
We currently have a similar inspection requirement in effect for vehicles sold by dealers. This has been in place for several years in the province of Manitoba.
The proposed amendments will permit the department to harmonize the private vehicle inspection requirements with dealer inspection requirements and, as a result, simplify the administrative implications for both dealers and the Registrar. For example, one common inspection form will be used and the same critical components will be checked at both dealer inspections and private vehicle inspections.
A provision has also been added that will permit the Registrar to accept vehicle inspection certificates issued in other jurisdictions as satisfactory proof of inspection prior to registration of that vehicle here in Manitoba.
Most other jurisdictions in Canada and the U.S. have vehicle inspection programs that are substantially similar to Manitoba's. If a certificate produced is valid and analogous to Manitoba's, then it will be accepted by the Registrar.
Third, Madam Speaker, is residency requirements. This issue will be dealt with in the bill, and improves the clarification of the requirement for a person to be a resident of the province in order for a driver's licence to be issued.
These changes are necessary to ensure consistency of residency requirements for drivers' licences and vehicle registrations.
My department is currently involved in a review with Manitoba Public Insurance regarding residency requirements for vehicle registrations and insurance purposes. The intent of this exercise is to come up with a common definition of what makes a person a resident in Manitoba. For consistency's sake, new requirements should apply for drivers' licensing purposes as well.
The act is quite vague right now on what constitutes residency, so we are introducing some changes that will assist us in clarifying that.
Madam Speaker, I have summarized the changes introduced in Bill 31 amending The Highway Traffic Act. While the bill was somewhat lengthy, the intent of the majority of the amendments is to simplify certain programs administered in my department. This will consequently alleviate the corresponding administrative burden shared by those in the business community who are involved in performing vehicle safety inspections, and, secondly, will permit the Registrar to deal with drivers suffering from medical conditions on an individual basis, and assess each situation on its merits.
As I said earlier, it will make the assessments not only easier but less onerous than currently is the situation. So I look forward to discussing this in committee and hearing comments from my critics. I will distribute to the critic from the NDP party and to a representative of the Liberals the spreadsheets for this particular Bill 31. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): I move, seconded by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 32--The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), that Bill 32, The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi sur les procédures contre la Couronne, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: This bill to be known as The Proceedings Against the Crown Amendment Act is required to permit enforcement of certain provisions of the internal trade agreement. This agreement was signed by Canada's provinces, territories and federal government on July 18, 1994, and is generally effective July 1, 1995.
The purpose of this agreement is to reduce and eliminate internal barriers to trade. It has been a high priority for Manitoba as our economy depends greatly on trade with other parts of Canada. The agreement includes dispute resolution procedures to resolve trade-related issues between governments and private persons. In particular, it provides that a dispute resolution panel may make an award of costs in favour of a private person.
* (1440)
Accordingly, the agreement requires each signatory government to amend its laws to permit that private person to enforce such an award in the same manner as any person may enforce a court award. This bill before the Legislature addresses this requirement. With these brief remarks, I recommend the bill for second reading and to a committee of this House.
Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
Bill 33--The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Madam Speaker, I move seconded by the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Bill 33, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995; Loi de 1995 modifiant diverses dispositions législatives, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House.
Motion presented.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, Bill 33, The Statute Law Amendment Act, 1995, is before us primarily for the purpose of correcting minor errors in the statutes. Honourable members will note that most of the sections of this bill correct cross-referencing, typographical and other editing errors in various acts, as well as some inconsistencies in the French versions.
There are a few substantive matters included in the bill which I would like to mention. The Crown Corporations Public Review and Accountability Act is being amended to ensure that the act reflects the current law as to jurisdiction over Manitoba Telephone System and to delete certain obsolete references.
As well, The Highways and Transportation Department Act is being amended to accord with the revised GMA guidelines regarding approvals of contract by government and to provide that interest on the contract holdback will be payable only if the accumulated interest is $20 or more.
The bill also contains an amendment to The Interpretation Act to ensure that the extension of time for filing documents currently provided for in the act covers all situations where an office is closed.
Minor amendments are proposed to The Mining Claim Tax Act to clarify when the tax is payable within the year and to transfer to the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Praznik) from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) the responsibility to issue certain kinds of notices.
The proceedings against The Crown Act is also being amended to provide for notice to the Crown of a claim for damages against an officer or an agent of the Crown.
An amendment we made to the nonsmokers health protection act last session relating to the obligation of proprietors with respect to nonsmoking areas is being clarified.
Finally, The University of Manitoba Act is amended to update references to federal legislation in provisions dealing with the university's power to invest monies and to validate actions done under the assumption that the old legislation was in force. These amendments were requested by the University of Manitoba.
Madam Speaker, as I have indicated, the other parts of Bill 33 deal for the most part with minor errors identified by the Legislative Counsel office in the course of the year. I look forward to discussing this bill further at committee stage. Thank you.
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Madam Speaker, I wonder if the honourable minister would permit a question.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit the honourable member for Brandon East to pose a question to the honourable Minister of Justice? Leave?
Mr. Leonard Evans: If the minister agrees, I think that is all that is necessary.
My question is, will the minister be distributing, as I believe is customary, a book of explanation or explanatory notes to members of the House to assist them to understand the various clauses in the law amendments act? I believe that has been the practice in the past.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Speaker, that certainly can be done.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, would you call Report Stage for Bill 24?
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to permit Report Stage on Bill 24 to be proceeded with? [agreed]
REPORT STAGE
Bill 24--The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act
Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Madam Speaker, I move
THAT Bill 24 be amended in the English version of the proposed subsection 25.2(1) as set out in section 14 of the Bill by adding "the packaging of" after "represent that".
Motion presented.
Mr. Stefanson: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey), that Bill 24, The Tobacco Tax Amendment Act; Loi modifiant la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac, reported from the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I will shortly be moving the motion for Committee of Supply and, by leave, the Committee of Supply will recess tonight at 6 p.m. and reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. and sit until 12 p.m., and, by leave also, the Law Amendments Committee will sit concurrently with the House or with Committee of Supply, as the case may be, tomorrow morning between 10 and 12.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave that at 6 p.m. this evening the Committee of Supply recess and the House reconvene tomorrow morning at 10 a.m.? Leave?
An Honourable Member: Leave.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to have the Standing Committee on Law Amendments sit tomorrow morning concurrently with Committee of Supply at 10 a.m.?
Mr. Ernst: Madam Speaker, if I may have a moment. What will occur tomorrow is that we will reconvene tomorrow morning in Committee of Supply. We will do Capital Supply, then we will revert to the House and then we will go into Committee of the Whole to consider concurrence.
At some portion of the morning we may well be in the House, so we will require permission of the House to have the committee sitting concurrently as well.
Madam Speaker: Is there leave to have the Committee on Law Amendments sit tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. concurrently with the House? Agreed? [agreed]
* (1450)
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, I would like to change the sequence of Estimates to put Housing and Home Renovations - Capital, currently in Room 255--to move it here into the House.
Madam Speaker: Agreed? That the sequence of Committee of Supply be changed to move into the Chamber? [agreed]
Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): I move, seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae), that Madam 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.
MATTERS OF GRIEVANCE
Bill C-89--Sale of CNR
Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Flin Flon): Madam Speaker, under Rule 26.1, I rise today on a grievance regarding the refusal of the provincial government to take seriously the threat to our transportation system and the neglect of our transportation system by the provincial government.
Over the past few weeks during this session we have asked questions repeatedly concerning the sale of CNR--that is Bill C-89--changes to the regulations of transportation, the threats to the Port of Churchill, the bayline, the future of passenger rail service in this province, especially in the North, and the conditions of northern roads.
We have asked about the rail line abandonment and the added cost that will be borne by farmers shipping their grain to market, the added cost that will fall on taxpayers because of more wear and tear on our roads. We have asked about jobs lost in the transportation sector, especially railway jobs, because
Manitoba has lost jobs, thousands of railway jobs, in the last few years. We have asked and we are concerned about the future of the Transcona yards.
We are concerned about ports and airports. As the federal government is offloading its responsibility to certain airports in this province and the Port of Churchill eventually, the province and this government stand back and let it happen. I do not see any of that proactive approach to a developing crisis that the government so often talks about. Instead, I see the government standing back watching our transportation system going through tremendous upheavals without intervening. I see this government rationalizing this fatalism by saying it is all the fault of the federal government or saying there is nothing we can do about it anyway or saying it is all part of globalization.
Madam Speaker, this government cannot abdicate its responsibility to Manitoba's transportation system. I suppose that this government subscribes to the theory that the best government is the one that governs least. Well, with regard to key aspects of Manitoba's transportation sector, this government is not governing at all.
They were elected to govern to protect that transportation infrastructure that was paid for by the people of this country and this province, not to give away that infrastructure or let it be given away. I do not recall this government fighting against Bill C-89. In fact, they supported it, the privatization of CN, despite the fact that this privatization process will result in still more job losses for railway workers.
This province has already lost at least 3,000 jobs in the last few years in the railway sector. This government did not even present a submission on Bill C-89. This government's support for a railroad that belongs to the people is about as lukewarm as their support for the Canadian Wheat Board. It is Jets yes, CN no. That seems to be their motto.
Regarding the layoff of the manager of the Port of Churchill, I do not see this government having done too much about that, and I think that particular layoff was a clear signal from the federal government that they, the federal government, are less than enthusiastic about Churchill's future. Madam Speaker, if the exciting possibilities of the Akjuit spaceport at Churchill are to be realized, a viable railroad to Churchill, a viable airport at Churchill and a viable port at Churchill are all necessary.
Madam Speaker, both the federal and provincial levels of government are abdicating their responsibility for maintaining a diverse all-Canadian transportation system that meets the needs of all Canadians, all Manitobans. Leaving it to the private sector is just not good enough. Governments are elected to represent all people, including rural people, northern people, aboriginal people, not just hockey people. I am tired of the user-pay philosophy that may be beneficial to a few people in the metropolis but is deadly for the more sparsely populated sections of our country, especially the North, and also because it perniciously affects the lives of working-class people and their families.
In the northern part of this province, Madam Speaker, the only link to the south is often a railroad or a road or an airport, and if that road is impassable, then the people cannot connect to the south, even for medical emergencies. If the airport closes or its services are curtailed, there are truly negative consequences for the people that live there.
The federal government has sidestepped its responsibility by cutting funding to airports at The Pas, Flin Flon, Thompson, Lynn Lake and elsewhere. How is a small town such as Lynn Lake to absorb all the cost of operating an airport? How is Flin Flon to find the extra $300,000 annually to run its airport, especially in these difficult economic times?
These added costs for towns and cities in the North, towns and cities that are still reeling from job losses, cutbacks and shrinking tax bases, are unfair. Those airports are not luxuries. They are vitally necessary for the people of the North. It is a clear abdication of the federal government's responsibility to the citizens of this country and this province, and this government has done nothing to take up the slack.
It is not only the ports, the railroads, the airports that are under attack, that are being tossed to the tender mercies of the marketplace--even something as fundamental to the provincial transportation system as roads are not adequately funded or equitably distributed.
This government will never convince northerners that the North is receiving fair treatment regarding road construction and upgrading. The facts speak for themselves. In 1981-1982, 21.6 percent of the road construction budget of this province went to the North. Last year this figure was somewhere between 5 percent and 6 percent. I believe it was 5.2 percent, around there. We need to spend at least four times that much just to upgrade northern roads, to upgrade them.
Hundreds and millions of dollars of Hydro power and minerals and wood come out of the North each year. Road construction in the North should be based on needs because the North has a sparse population. We are not asking for extras here, just our fair share--perhaps some of those millions of dollars that the VLTs are sucking south from the North. Take, for example, Leaf Rapids and Lynn Lake. These communities have contributed taxes and mineral wealth to this province that must by now amount to tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet they still do not have a decent road.
PR391 at best is passable and at its worst, in the spring, is nothing more than a cow track. Ambulances have to be escorted by the RCMP to get to Thompson from Leaf Rapids in the spring. People get stuck in the middle of the road. The wear and tear on vehicles, especially windshields and mufflers, is unbelievable. There have been deadly accidents on this road.
The Sherridon road is another example of a road that needs major upgrading. It needs to be widened. It needs to be straightened. There are over 200 sharp curves in the first 80 kilometres of the Sherridon road. There have been numerous accidents on this narrow, winding road. Similarly, the roads to Cross Lake, Norway House, Gillam and Moose Lake need major upgrading.
* (1500)
Madam Speaker, our transportation system is under stress. The sale of CN threatens hundreds of jobs in Winnipeg and northern Manitoba. What is the government's position on this? What is their position on the deregulation of the transportation industry and the threat it poses to passenger rail services in the North, not to mention the negative impact on farmers and shippers?
This government shows no interest in any of these matters, whether it is the Port of Churchill, CNR, airports, northern roads or any other major transportation issue.
Many members of this House would be quite happy if this government showed the same concern for the threatened aspects of Manitoba's transportation system as this government shows for the Jets and the hockey arena. We need fewer excuses, Madam Speaker. We need more action. Thank you.
Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Speaker, under Rule 26.1 of our House, I rise on a grievance.
We had the opportunity today to deal with an issue in this House during Question Period relating to the CN Rail operations in Canada and the impacts that the changes to this federal railway are going to have on the province of Manitoba. We had the opportunity to ask many questions, my colleagues and I, of the Minister of Transport here in this House.
I must say, in listening to the responses from the minister of transport, we did not receive one answer of any action that this minister has taken to try and protect the employment opportunities for the people who are currently employed in this industry in Manitoba, nor has he taken any opportunities to try and protect the facilities and any of the other operations that are currently taking place in Manitoba and creating employment opportunities for Manitoba residents.
We think, Madam Speaker, that is very, very unfortunate, that the minister of transport would not see that as his role and mandate as the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) in this province.
We asked the minister if he had gone to Ottawa to make a presentation to the Standing Committee on Transport and to Parliament on Bill C-69, which is a bill that will privatize CN Rail. This minister did not respond. In fact, we know that this minister did not go to Ottawa and did not make a presentation on Bill C-69. This bill potentially could take away all of the remaining jobs that we have in the CN Transcona Shops, some 1,250 jobs that are currently remaining there, and yet this minister did not think it was important enough to travel to Ottawa to make a presentation on behalf of Manitobans who are currently employed in this industry.
Now we find out, Madam Speaker, that the minister is only considering who may go to Ottawa, if anybody, because he did not commit himself or anybody in the department to going to make a presentation on the bill currently before Parliament dealing with deregulation of the transportation industry in Canada, which would include CN Rail, and the impacts that it would have on the province of Manitoba.
So this minister has totally abdicated himself and his department of any responsibility with any transportation matters in this province and the employment that goes along with those transportation sectors. We think it is incumbent for this minister to take upon himself and his department officials to protect the employment opportunities and to protect the industries for the province, something that he has not done to this point in time.
The minister has not taken into consideration or at least not given us an indication in this House what he is going to do, because, as we know when the deregulation bill takes effect for the railways in Canada, we are going to see an offloading of the transportation onto the highways into provinces like Manitoba. There is going to be a considerable shift in the volumes of traffic onto trucks, which is going to put tremendous pressure on our grid-road system which in turn is going to stress the budgets not only of the Province of Manitoba but it is going to stress the budgets of the various municipalities throughout the province.
We already saw earlier in the 1990s, Madam Speaker, where this government offloaded some 2,000 kilometres of good road systems back onto the municipalities. We know the impact that has had on the municipalities and the budgets they had to work with. They were quite worried at the time and still are quite worried that they are not going to be able to cope with that 2,000 kilometre offloading by this government.
Now we are going to see some more of the pressure put on the municipalities as they try and maintain the grid-road system, much of it which supports the farm economy of this province. We are going to see a deterioration of those roads, because there is not going to be sufficient capital to maintain those road systems.
It was also interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that the current Liberal government, when they were in opposition in Ottawa, indicated that they were opposed to the deregulation plans of the Mulroney government, and time after time they railed against the Mulroney government for the actions they were taking to deregulate the transportation industry. When the Mulroney government indicated they were considering privatization of CN, the Liberal government, Mr. Chretien, when he was in opposition, indicated that he was opposed because it was going to destroy the national dream in this country.
Here we go, and what do we do? What do we have here today? We have the Liberal government that was elected, and they are following the same course of action that the previous Mulroney government had done. It is no wonder that the people of my constituency have said to me that this Chretien government is no different than the previous Mulroney government. They are taking the same actions that the Mulroney government had taken.
It was interesting, too, when we listened to some of the comments that the former Liberal leader in this House had taken in 1994 when he said that he could hardly wait--I should say in 1993--for a change in the federal government because we are going to see changes in the railway policy in this country, and it was going to stop the line abandonments and it was going to stop the loss of rail jobs--
An Honourable Member: Who said that?
Mr. Reid: I believe it was the former leader of the Liberal Party here in Manitoba who is now, I think, in some other form of employment. It was the former member for St. James who I know made those statements here.
We have listened to the comments. We know in actual fact that there is a new Liberal leader in this House, judging by the actions that we have seen here. It is unfortunate that the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) who is acting as the Liberal leader in this House has not taken any stand to protect real jobs in this province, considering the fact that his campaign manager from previous elections worked for the railways.
He will not even defend rail jobs in the province here, and he will not even take action to protect any of the other jobs, whether they be in the Transcona main shops or any other of the railway jobs throughout Manitoba. So we have seen no changes or differences between the previous Mulroney government and the current Chretien government when it comes to the abandonment of rail lines in this province.
We know that when the deregulation bill takes effect, that there is going to be abandonment of rail lines in the province. That is going to put significant pressure on the farm communities, because the farm communities themselves and the producers of this province are going to have to transport their product from the farm gate to a terminal at some point--we are talking about grain product here--and it is going to be a considerable distance away from where they currently locate, because it is my understanding that some of the grain companies are also rationalizing their operations, causing the farmers to transport by truck their product further to the elevators, and it is going to shift those costs back onto the municipalities, something that I believe that they can ill afford.
(Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair)
When we talked about the legislation that is currently before Parliament and the impact that it is going to have on Manitoba, we note that the federal government said that the government should not be involved in any business that can be handled by the private sector, and, yet, when the government brings in legislation to privatize CN, what do they do? They lock into legislation in a very political way that CN headquarters must remain within the city of Montreal.
* (1510)
It does not leave the new owners of CN through their board of directors to make the decision on where the headquarters should be situated, whether it be in the province of Quebec or whether it be in the province of Ontario or in western Canada which we would prefer to see, preferably in the city of Winnipeg.
There are some thousand jobs that are associated with CN headquarters. We already know, as my colleague for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) has pointed out in her questions today in this House, that some 60 percent of the profit of CN comes from western Canada. I know in my time in working at CN that 70 percent of the traffic for CN originated in western Canada.
So there is absolutely no reason why the federal government has to lock into legislation that the headquarters of CN should remain within the city of Montreal when most of the traffic is generated in western Canada and most of the profit is generated for CN in western Canada. Therefore, I believe that the headquarters should be here and the thousand jobs that are associated with it. We have a time-zone advantage in Manitoba. We have a bilingual workforce, and we have a highly skilled workforce that could fulfill the role and mandate of a headquarters for a national rail company.
It is funny that this government, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is worried about building a new arena for some $111 million. They say that there is an economic benefit to the province of Manitoba, and I think the economic benefit was in the range of $9 million a year, and, yet, I indicated today during my questions that CN Transcona Shops, alone, bring to Manitoba $140 million a year and that the government here today, this provincial government, is not willing to take action to defend that $140 million in expenditures, a part of which is the payroll for the 1,250 current employees in that operation.
I find it strange that they are more worried about spending $111 million for a new arena, covering the losses for the hockey team since 1991 to save, I heard, 1,200 part-time jobs, when we already have 1,200 full-time, well-paying jobs that create at least three to one spin-off in this province. It is beyond my comprehension why this government will not take the necessary steps to try and protect the employment for those people.
The Minister of Transportation indicated here today, when I asked the questions relating to whether or not the sale of the Montreal AMF shops will include part of the workload that is currently being carried on by the Transcona main shop operations as a part of the condition of sale to, I believe, a Dutch firm, that he knew nothing about it.
Now here is a minister who is supposed to be responsible for transportation in this province, who met only two and a half weeks ago with CN and did not even ask the questions that were important to the people of Manitoba that are currently employed in the railway industry. He did not ask what CN's plans were for employment or for layoffs in the province. He did not ask that the headquarters be transferred to Manitoba. He did not ask why some of the workload potentially will be shifted from the Transcona main shops to the Montreal AMF shops that is currently being offered for sale to a Dutch firm.
So I have to ask here, what is this minister doing to try and protect rail jobs in this province? What is his mandate if it is not to help the industry of this province? Maybe he had some other definition of what his responsibilities are, but we think that he has abandoned his responsibilities to the rail industry of this province and he has abandoned his responsibilities to the people working in the rail industry of this province. We think he should take a look at what his responsibilities are and assume those duties.
The minister indicated that he had sent only letters, that he was not willing to spend the $400 on a round-trip air ticket to make a presentation to the Standing Committee on Transport regarding the deregulation of the rail industry, the transportation industry in Canada and also the legislation dealing with the privatization of CN. It would have been a very modest investment that could reap large rewards for the province of Manitoba if only he had made that opportunity and travelled to Ottawa to make that presentation on behalf of the people of Manitoba.
The minister now has an opportunity to correct at least a part of that wrong. He can travel to Ottawa when the hearings take place before the Standing Committee on Transport dealing with the deregulation of the transport industry because the deregulation not only affects the rail industry, it affects the airlines and the marine industry as well. The minister has the opportunity here to take some steps to protect the interests of Manitoba. We call on the minister to take those necessary steps to protect the industries of Manitoba and the people who are employed in that.
With those few comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity here today to rise on a grievance dealing with an issue that is very fundamental to my community of Transcona, which I have represented now since 1990, and for the people who are employed in the rail industry in the province of Manitoba.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Speaker, as Rule 26.1 stipulates, I would also like to rise on a grievance today.
Along with a number of my caucus colleagues, we are trying to take this opportunity with the recent passage of Bill C-89 of the federal government to give a warning call or ring the bells for this provincial government, a wake-up call for this provincial government, to take some interest in what is happening with a fundamental issue for Canada.
The privatization of CN Rail represents yet another institution in this country that we are losing that has been a unifying force for this country. Similarly, we are seeing the Wheat Board having major threats and changes made to it. We are seeing the same with CBC. We are seeing the same with a number of other institutions that have made Canada the country that it is and helped us deal with the large expanse of land that we have in this country with such a small population.
So it is with that kind of sentiment, I guess you could call it, that I approach the House in this grievance because there is concern across this country with the push for globalization and deregulation and free trade that we are seeing the effects here with the privatization of CN.
I guess the big issue is that this Conservative provincial government has not done all that it can to protect the interests of Manitoba as an economic entity and protect the interests of the many citizens and families that rely on the rail transportation industry for their livelihoods.
The members opposite are saying that they cannot accept that. If they cannot accept that, then why did they not go to Ottawa to the hearings on this bill and make the case for Manitoba, make the case for the thousands of people who are now in fear of losing their jobs and make the case for the double standard. Why is there nothing in this legislation for the interests of western Canada when there is in the interests of Montreal?
Why is there nothing in the interests of western Canada since 60 percent of the profits for CN, which now is a very profitable company, come from western Canada? Two hundred and forty-five million dollars was raised last year for this company, and now that it is profitable it is going to be privatized.
So it baffles me that this government can send representation to Ottawa on gun control, the gun registration bill, and they can ignore such a fundamental economic issue as the future of rail transportation for Manitoba; similarly, that they could have a campaign like no other public campaign through the media to rally support for the Jets and the arena but not speak a word of protest publicly and through the media with respect to the loss of CN.
This bill also represents not only the turning of the back on the people of Manitoba by the Conservative government but also by the federal Liberal government. They did not campaign on the issue of privatization of CN. Certainly not in Transcona, they did not campaign on this issue, but in the federal election they talked about ending the hemorrhaging of loss of jobs, and now what have they done? They have put in place legislation that is going to do that very thing and perhaps even wipe out this industry that has been not only the backbone for many communities like Transcona, but has been the backbone of the economy in Manitoba. It has been the largest industrial employer in Manitoba.
That is what I have been amazed at, that we have seen nothing from this government to talk about the economic impact on Manitoba of this change. They have not talked about how this is going to affect so many other major industries, the steel industry, the grain and other agricultural industries, the manufacturing industry. There are other countries all over the world that are moving to greater reliance on rail transportation, and in Canada, we are going backwards.
* (1520)
Rail transportation in our age provides a tremendous opportunity for environmental reasons. Not only does it provide greater protection in transportation of dangerous goods because we have more control over where those goods are travelling, but also in terms of fuel efficiency, the rail industry is very important.
So that is one reason this government should also be advocating and getting up to speed with some of the other countries in the world, because as other members have commented, this represents a huge offloading from the federal government onto more local governments, more local jurisdictions of government, which are then going to be putting out millions of dollars in increased funding for road maintenance and road construction because of the loss of rail transportation.
The subsequent abandonment of rail lines that is going to result from this is going to be very expensive to this province. Where has this government been in talking about that, in talking about how this is going to affect even all the municipalities and communities that they represent in southwestern Manitoba? We have not heard that kind of analysis coming from this government, and I think they are quite negligent then in their responsibility in standing up and protecting the interests of Manitoba.
We are also then not only losing a benefit in terms of investment into infrastructure and how that helps so many communities across the province, but we are also essentially losing control over our local economies in Manitoba and in Canada because this is ultimately--not only will it be privatized, but the option is for it to be privatized into a non-Canadian company.
I guess that is one of the most offensive things about this legislation that not only does it not attempt to maintain the works yards and the administrative offices in the regions of the country where they do the majority of their work, it is now going to allow the private ownership and the drain of profit out of the country.
That is what we are seeing across this country with more and more foreign ownership of major industries that are necessary for our country.
One of the other things I wanted to mention is the approach that the federal government and this government have taken with respect to this privatization of CN, that it is somehow inevitable. What we have seen is a systematic plan over the last 10 years, I would say, under the Mulroney government and then simply continued on under the federal Liberal government.
They maintained Mr. Tellier, who was in Mulroney's Privy Council, as the head of CN. Now that goes miles to assure us that the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are no different in their attitude to this Crown corporation and to this industry and to their philosophy with respect to the economy in this country because they have allowed the same approach and the same slow erosion of CN to be conducted under the Liberal government as was under the Mulroney government.
So Chretien is, as one article said, a new emperor in the same clothes, the same clothes with respect to the treatment of this major institution for Canada.
I was saying there has been a strategic process of what I would call offloading in the transportation sector with respect to this major move to privatize CN, and one of the other things that I think is also reprehensible about this is one of the articles that I was reading talked about how this was a victory for management because they are going to eliminate what they called the job-for-life requirement in the collective agreement between CN and its employees.
Now there have been a lot of misrepresentations with respect to the job security clause, and I just want to go on record in talking a little bit about how that was negotiated. That was negotiated because of the advance in technology and the loss of employees because of the increase in technology.
We saw that when the railways lost the caboose and it was replaced with automated surveillance mechanisms. There was an attempt to ensure that employees were not simply going to be abandoned in the same fashion as so many rail lines are with the advance in technology in the railways, and there was going to be some attempt to reassign them.
Now I talk to members in my community who have been part of the job security program. Many people think that they are simply paid to stay at home, and that is not true. These people are on call at any time.
As one person told me, he was on call and was asked to go to Saskatchewan, what he was originally told was going to be for a weekend. He went to Saskatchewan at his own expense, was there not for a weekend, but for a month, and during that month had to pay for his own hotel and living expenses. So his wages and pay essentially did not come in whole to support his family but had to go, to a large extent, to support him, simply so he could maintain his position with the company. So I think there has been a lot of misrepresentation and misinformation put forward with respect to what that job security clause was all about and was meant to do, not recognizing that it was there to protect good-wage jobs.
This government has made a lot of to-do about other jobs that they have, they say, brought to Manitoba, but, by far, those have been minimum-wage jobs with no security, no collective agreement.
They are, as the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen) says, simply interested in what this new corporate phrase is, the flexible workplace, and they are willing to stand by and let good jobs simply be wiped out for Manitoba.
I guess I want to conclude by considering the remarks that some members have made when we have raised the issue of the Filmon government not doing its job with respect to this issue of rail development and industry development in Manitoba.
I remember the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) was quoted as saying that they thought that they had done their job with respect to maintaining CN in Manitoba because they had tried to keep the fuel tax down. Now I ask you to compare that one effort to what this government has created, the hoopla that they have created in terms of the Jets, and ask why that has not been done for the thousands of jobs in Manitoba due to the rail industry.
So I would conclude my remarks for calling on this government to take an interest in the importance of the rail sector to the Manitoba economy and to not simply deal with this issue in the partisan way that they have been, but to deal with it as an important part of our economy and look with more vision to the future for the provincial economy in Manitoba and start to advocate in every way that they can to maintain the rail industry in Manitoba.
As the minister today was suggesting in the House, we have maintained our percentage of jobs, but try to tell that to the families who have lost their jobs. Try and tell them, well, we still have the same percentage of people working in the rail industry in Canada compared to other provinces. That does not do a lot for all of the families who are being affected by this legislation and by this government's laissez faire attitude towards this issue.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Health Care in Manitoba
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Deputy Speaker, I, too, under the rules, wanted to take this opportunity to use my grievance. It will be somewhat brief.
(Madam Speaker in the Chair)
Earlier today I did get the opportunity to ask a question regarding health care and it was an issue on which I personally feel fairly strongly. During the health care Estimates, I did what I could in terms of articulating on the importance of the minister to be able to address the many different health care issues that are out there, and I indicated to him at the time that I felt that my role was going to be one of constructive, creative criticism. I think that there was a fairly good rapport that is there and still is there between both myself and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae).
* (1530)
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I have indicated to the minister that when there are issues of concern and where the government needs to be critiqued, I will take what opportunities I have before me to be able to do just that. The Fraser Institute came down with an interesting report and when we had talked about the five fundamental principles of health care, we had talked a lot about the comprehensiveness of health care and what is a health care service. I do not think that anyone inside the Chamber would question the need for the cardiovascular surgery, both elective, urgent and emergency areas.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, this particular report really raises a considerable amount of concern, because it is saying that in the province of Manitoba under elective heart surgery, if you like, that we have to wait 120 weeks. The next provinces to Manitoba in terms of length is 24 weeks, those being both Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. The Canadian average, of course, is 27 weeks.
We talked a lot during the Health Estimates about the need for a health care system that is fairly comparable across Canada, so that we have in essence the same sorts of level of service being provided no matter what province you happen to live in. This is one of the examples that I just wanted to point out to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) where there is a need to improve.
It is something which we did not have at the time that the Estimates came down, but because of the nature of this particular report, I do believe that it does warrant some attention from the Ministry of Health, and there are some things that we should be looking at. For example, we do know that there is a national protocol, some, I believe, nine criteria that are established for elective heart surgery, if you like, and are other provinces sticking to that same criteria? What about the province of Manitoba? I recall the former Minister of Health, where he would cite examples where Manitoba was using certain aspects of our health care services much more than other jurisdictions.
I am not going to say that this particular report points out all of the different facts and is 100 percent accurate in its reporting because you have to do some background work. The Ministry of Health does have the expertise in order to be able to do the background work, and suffice to say that 120 weeks is not good enough for the province of Manitoba, especially when you compare it to other regions in Canada.
The other fact that I thought was very interesting was from Dr. Michael Walker from the Fraser Institute, when we had asked him about what percentage, if you will, of those numbers that are on the waiting list are seeking or receiving treatment from outside of the province.
We were very surprised to hear that 45.5 percent of the patients have been inquiring about or receiving out-of-province treatment, Madam Speaker. Compare that to other provinces. Once again, the closest one is the province of Saskatchewan, where it is 5.3 percent of those patients.
Madam Speaker, that, to me, raises a fairly significant red flag, something which I believe the Ministry of Health should, in fact, be investigating because in Question Period I made reference to elective, and the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae)--and I am not too sure in terms of what it is that he was attempting to try to say, but he definitely tried to downplay the seriousness of it.
Elective heart surgery is something in which the patient does not necessarily have the choice--well, okay, I will not get heart surgery. It is just a question that you are at the bottom of the list, and you will go on to a lengthy waiting period, but the surgery, in fact, does have to take place. You know, you are almost better off, if you need to get heart surgery, to move to another province, take residency and get on their waiting list, than to stay in the province of Manitoba, Madam Speaker.
I think that in a nutshell says it all, that we should be attempting to achieve some form of national standards, and the best way we can do that is to look at those fundamental needs of health care services. This is definitely one of those fundamental services that need to be established across Canada. There is a national protocol. Obviously, we are not doing what is necessary in order to meet the national standard, Madam Speaker.
We are falling way behind. It is completely unacceptable, and I trust and hope that this government is going to do what it can to address this problem, both in the short term and the long term, so the next time we get into, for example, the health care Estimates, that the minister is going to be able to cite to this Chamber some form of a cross-country comparison example--not example. The word escapes me at the moment, but to be able to compare the province of Manitoba to other provinces across Canada, and we are going to fare, hopefully, a lot better than what the Fraser Institute has put us at in their most recent report.
Having said those very few words, Madam Speaker, I hope I have drawn to the attention in a bit more detail to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) the concerns that we have within the Liberal Party regarding health care in the province and, again, strongly encourage the Ministry of Health to address this problem in as quick a fashion as possible, so that the next time we are into Estimates, the minister is going to be able to bring good news to this Chamber in terms that we are at least at the Canadian average.
Madam Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
The question before the House is that Madam 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 La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson) in the Chair for the Department of Labour and the Civil Service Commission; and the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Housing.