MG-8048 Fourth Session ·Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 42 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLII No.104A • 1:30 p.m., MONDAY, JULY 19,1993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affiliation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMMINGS, Glen, Hon. DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Clif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCH ARD, Donald, Hon. PALLISTER, Brian PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOW CHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Well ington River Heigh ts Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescentwood Gimli Point Douglas Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St. Johns Swan River Rossmere Rupertsland The Maples PARTY.

Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP NDP PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC Liberal PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

5653 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday, July 19,1993 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Gail Dueck, Basil Holewka, Marlene Ho lewk a and others req ues ting the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 19 93- 94 budget. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Clif Evans).

It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules (by leave). 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 province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WH EREAS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and WHE REAS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program ; and WHERE AS several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care progra ms such as the Chi ldren's Dental Program; and WHE REAS the Children's Dental Program has been in effec t for 17 yea rs and has been recognized as extremely cost- effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and WH EREAS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 dentists, nurses and assis tants providing this service; and WHER EAS preve ntative heal th care is an essential component of health care reform.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to request the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 19 93- 94 budget. *** Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Martindale). It complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed] Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WH EREAS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and WHERE AS over 1 ,000 youn g adu lts are currently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their educ ation through the Studen t Social Allowances Program; and WHER EAS Winnipeg already has the highest number of people on welfare in decades; and WHE REAS the provincial gove rnment has already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the City of Winnipeg; and WH EREAS the provincial government is now pr op osing to elim inate the Student Social Allowances Program; and WHER EAS elimin ating 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 Manitoba may be pleased to request 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 (Ms. Barrett). 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)

5654 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA J uly 19, 1993 Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and WHER EAS over 55,000 children depend upon the Children's Dental Program; and WHERE AS several studies have pointed out the cost savings of preventative and treatment health care progr ams such as the Children's Dental Program; and WHERE AS the Children's Dental Program has been in effect for 1 7 years and has been recognized as extremely cost- effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and WHER EAS the provincial government did not consult the users of the program or the providers before announcing plans to eliminate 44 of the 49 de ntists, nurses and assistants providing this service; and WHERE AS prev entative health care is an essential component of health care reform.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisla tive Assembly of Manitoba may be pleased to reques t the Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) consider restoring the Children's Dental Program to the level it was prior to the 1993-94 budget. *** Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Ashton). 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 province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHERE AS the state of Hi ghway 391 is becoming increasingly unsafe; and WHER EAS due to the poor condition of the road there have been numerous accidents; and WHERE AS the condition of the road between Thompson and Nelson House is not only making travel dangerous but costly due to frequent damage to vehicles; and WHER EAS this road is of vital importance to residents who must use the road.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be ple ased to requ es t tha t the gove rnment of Manitoba consider reviewing the state of Highway 391 with a view towards improving the condition and safety of the road. * (1 335) PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mr. Bob Rose (Chairperson of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments. Mr. Clerk (Willi am Remnant): Your Standing Com m ittee on Law Amendments prese nts the following as its Ninth Report.

Your committee met on Thursday, July 15, 1993, at 7 p.m. in Room 255 of the Legislative Building to consider bills referred. Your committee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 40- The Lega l Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendmen t and Cr own Attorneys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d' aide juridique du Manitoba et Ia

Loi sur les procureurs de Ia Couronne Dou glas N. Abra, Q.C. - Law Society of Manitoba Your committee has considered: Bill 27-The Environment Amendment Act (2); Loi no 2 modifiant Ia

Loi sur l'environnement and ha s agreed to repor t the same with the following amendment: MOTION: THAT

section 5 of the Bill be amended by striking out "coming into force of the regu lation" and substituting "coming into force of this Act". Your committee has also considered: Bill 36- The Hig hway Traffic Amendment Act; Loi modifiant le Code de Ia route Bill 40-The Legal Aid Services Society of Manitoba Amendmen t and Crown Attorneys Amendment Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d' aide jur idique du Manitoba et Ia

Loi sur les procureurs de Ia Couronne Bill 44- The Alcoholism Foundation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Fondation manitobaine de lutte contre

July 19, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5655 l' alcoolisme et app ortant des modifi cat ions correlatives a una autre loi and has agreed to report the same without amendment. All of which is respectfully submitted. Mr. Rose: I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), 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 loge to my left, where we have with us this afternoon Mr. AI Patterson, the former memb er for Radisson.

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir. Also, we have this afternoon seated in the public gallery, Ms. Robin Friesen, the Altona Sunflower Festival Queen in company of Ms. Natalie Firte, the Australian Festival Queen, and a guest. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Protection of Children Government Polley Review Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. John s) : Mr.

Speaker, the tragic death of Tina Franks and the circumstances surrounding her death should give us all pause to reconsider what government is doing in terms of allocating its resources to protect children. The Tina Franks tragedy is not isolated. There are many other stories of children at risk and falling through the cracks in the system. The findings of Charlie Fer gus on and the comments made by Keith Cooper raise some very important and serious questions about whether the government is living up to its mandate to protect children.

I would like to ask the acting Premier today whether he will consider reviewing, rethinking and revisiting its policies and decisions as they affect children and give us some assurances that they are working to strengthen their mandate to protect children. Hon. Jame s Downey (Deputy Premier) : Mr. Speaker, let me assure the House and the people of Manitoba that this government has put forward every effort possible to make sure the safety and the care of children and the most vulnerable in our society is uppermost in our priority.

I can assure the member that we will do everything we can to protect those vulnerable individuals. Foster Parents Training Support Ms. Judy Wasylyc la-Lels (St. Johns) : Mr. Speaker, certainly, we are not putting all the blame for this tragedy and other traged ies on the sh oulder s of this gov ernment, but it is this government that has reduced support for training and supervision.

I would like to ask the acting Premier or the Minister of Family Services whether at this time now they will consider increasing the training component available to foster parents and support for the Manitoba Foster Family Association, given the fact that the abuse that happens in homes is often a result of not enough training support for parents with higher risk children. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, certainly our department, in working with the agencies, is very concerned about the recruitment, the licensing and training of foster parents.

There is a very rigid test that the agencies go through before foster parents are licensed. They must go through a criminal records check, a child abuse registry check, a medical reference. Other references must be brought forward. Part of the ongoing component is for training. In some of the changes in the last budget, some 50 cents per day for each child in care, for each day in care, has been directed towards the agency to continue with the training of foster parents. This is an ongoing initiative. Certainly, one child being physically or sexually abused while in care is one too many.

We will work with the agencies to do everything within our power to see that that situation is made better. • (1 340) Ms. Wasylycla-Lels: That is appreciated , Mr. Speaker, but that still does not address that issue of this government's cuts to supervision and training, which are absolutely necessary.

5656 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 Child and Family Services Agencies Reduced Workweek Ms. Judy Wasylycla-Lels (St. Johns): Let me ask the Minister of Family Services, given Keith Cooper's comments on supervision, whether or not this government is willing to reconsider its 1 0 days off for child weHare workers, making it harder for them to do their monthly visits to monitor homes and increasing the risk for children in care. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, when I met with the chief executive officers of the agencies and the agency board presidents, they agreed that while child welfare work was very difficult, additional financial resources are not always the answer, and they would put in place the same sort of management plan that they do on long weekends to be sure that agencies are operating. As I have indicated, we have redirected some funds through the agencies for the training of foster parents.

I know from talking with the board chairs and certainly with the executive directors of those agencies, this is an ongoing issue that all child welfare agencies go through. We are com mitted through a number of our reforms to work with those agencies to make child care in Manitoba the best we possibly can. Child Abuse Zero Tolerance Mr. Doug Martlndale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, on July 12 the chair of the child abuse committee of Winnipeg Child and Family Services wrote to the Minister of Family Services a letter which I would like to table.

They point out that there is a contradiction betwe en this gove rnment's rhe toric in the Legislature and what they are actually doing in terms of cutting funding. They criticized the government for their misplaced priorities in terms of deficit reduction but not giving enough funds to Child and Family Services agencies. I woul d lik e to ask the Minister of Family Services: Why does his government have a zero tolerance policy for domestic violence but not have a zero tolerance policy for child abuse, which is a similarly very serious issue which this government should be putting more resources into? Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Spea ker, I jus t indicated our concern and our willingness to work with agencies. What we have been doing over the last two years is to bring about a system-wide reform of the system to make the system more responsible, to make the agencies more responsive to the issues that are out there. We ha ve, in fact, est ablis hed the Chil d Advocate's office, and he is just in the final stages of hiring additional staff now to become operative.

We have brought in and implemented the high­ risk indicators as an additional tool for social workers to work with some very vulnerable people in soci ety . We have been in the process of devel oping the automa ted service information system, which will go a long way in co-ordinating the work that is being done between agencies. So our commitment has been very strong, and we have brought about reforms to the system that the system has been wanting for a number of years. Alternative Home Program Cost Benefits Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services why a child was removed from the Alternative Home Program of Macdonald Youth Services, an excellent program, whose evaluation is public and showed that the cost to the system was less after children had been in the Alternative Home Program. Why did they remove a child which cost $33,000 more than leaving the same child in the Alternative Home Program? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I think the member is aware that I am under su bstantial restrictions from discussing specific cases here in the Legislature.

I would offer that the member could be in contact with the agency, and I think he would find there are other factors involved in the case management surrounding various individuals, and another point of view probably will be offered by the agency. I woul d ur ge the member, if he tru ly wa nts information, to contact the agency in regard to cases like that. •

(1345) July 19, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5657 Child Abuse Committee Report Recommendations Mr. Doug Martindale (Burr ows): Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is: I would like to ask the minister if he has read this report and if he is following up on their recommendations, since the report, for example, points out that 57 percent of the children are aboriginal in the Alternative Home Program and points out a need for more and better facilities in northern Manitoba, since many of these children end up in foster homes in Winnipeg.

Has the minister read these recommendations, and what changes is he going to implement? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Ther e are a numb er of issues surrounding the child welfare agencies that work with aboriginal children, and this is why we have in place at the present time an aboriginal or First Nations task force on child and family services, something I am pleased that we are working with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the federal government on.

At the same time, we have also put in place a service appeal panel to deal with any specific cases that come forward at this time, but I have said consistently that there is a need for some changes with the First Nations Child and Family Services agency. We are looking forward to a report, probably in the next couple of months, to bring forward recommendations on how we can best address the issues surrounding First Nations children in care. Western Economic Co-operation Health Care System Mr. Paul Edwards (Lead er of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, day in, day out in this House, we are reminded by the government that costs are increasing and revenues are not. We in the opposition are often criticized by them as having lots of ideas about how to spend ever­ increasing amounts of money but not save those dollars. I have, for some time, and I am going to raise it again today, talked about western economic co-operation as a way to do that. Today in Atlantic Canada, the Atlantic Premiers are meeting in a dedicated conference to talk about furthering their ever-increasing co-opera tion.

They are dedicating, as a part of that conference, health care costs.

My qu estion to the De pu ty Pr emi er this afternoon: Given that the benefits of western economic co-oper ation have been identified, written about, researched now going on six years, and those savings have been estimated at $5 billion and, further, it has been estimated that $600 million would be freed up annually only by joint drug and equipment purchases between the western provinces, when is this government going to take this seriously and take some leadership role in saving costs and rationalizing health care services across the western provinces, so we can continue to offer the high level of service Manitobans expect without fa cing the ever-i ncreasing costs this government continually complains about?

Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note the co-operative spirit of the Leader of the Liberal Party. It may do well for him to take a look at some of the positive initiatives this government is putting forward in legislative and economic packages, and I would hope he would see that need for co-operation within this setting and, as well, to support some of the positive objectives. Our Premier and this government have taken the lead to try to remove some of the interprovincial trade barriers between our provinces, taking a very aggressive role. I would expect, Mr.

Speaker, you can conti nue to see good com m on-sense, constructive policies and issues put forward at Premier s' conferences led by the Premier of Manitoba, the Honourable Gary Filmon. Government Commitment Mr. Paul Edwards (Lea der of the Second Opposition): The fact is this Premier, this government, have not achieved anywhere near the level of co-operation they have in Atlantic Canada. We have every reason to do it. Mr.

Chapman, the chairman of the board of the Health Scie nces Centre , the largest me dical institution in this province, is reported as saying: If group s of provinces banded together to offer a comple te range of programs, it could result in substantial savings. Add to that the fact that prairie provinces spend two times per capita on health care that they do in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, and there is every reason to show some leadership on this issue.

5658 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 Will the Deputy Premier commit on behalf of the government to assign one of the ministers of that cabinet to take under his or her wing the issue of western economic co-operation and show some leadership on this issue, and get past the partisan politics of this and work together with western provinces to achieve these savings for all of our benefit? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier) : Mr. Speaker, I can assure the me mb er that good, common-sense objectives and approaches will be carried forward by this Premier (Mr. Filmon).

I can, as well, point out to the honourable Leader of the second opposition party, I am encouraged by the thoughts of the Canadian public towards the new Prime Minister of Canada and the support which we have seen in the polls advancing to some 40 percent, that kind of leadership. Of course, I know the member would not be happy with how the federal Leader is dropping to some 23 percent, and, of course, I am sure the NDP party, at some 5 percent in the polls this morning, it would be very discouraging to them. But I say, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is important that we work with the federal government, we work with the pr ovinces to better the conditions of all Canadians. • (1 350) Mr. Edwards: It is precisely that very, very low level of partisan discussio n on behalf of this gove rnmen t which me ans that ec onomic co-ope rati on in a nonpartisan way does not happen. That is the result, that is the cause, that type of discussion, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the Deputy Premier: When is he going to take this issue seriously, not in a partisan vein, but take it seriously for all of our benefits, regardless of the tenure of his government or the political stripe of other governments, and work toward the savings which are there to be made so we can save this health care system for future generations in this province? When is he going to take it seriously and show some leadership? Mr. Downey: Mr.

Speaker, let me assure the member that there is a genuine interest on behalf of this government and the people of Manitoba to im prove all conditions, and where possible, working with other provinces, leadership shown by other provinces and other jurisdictions, we are prepared to participate in. I have clearly indicated we have led in the whole area of trying to break down interprovincial trade barriers, particularly in western Canada, a No. 1 priority which has been taken to the Premier s' conference by the Pr emier (Mr. Fil mo

n) of Manitoba. Home Care Program Program Reductions--J ustification Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr. Speaker, it is written: He hath shown you, 0 man, what is good; ... but to do justice, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? My qu estion to the honourable acting First Minister: Does he think his government is doing justice when his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) has proposed changes to the Home Care Program tha t would adve rse ly affect seniors and the disabled who want to continue living independently in their own homes? Hon. Jame s Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the member, as the Minister of Health has assured this House and the people of Manitoba, that the policy this government is pursuing is the one that was introduced by the Howard Pawley government in 1985, that where there is, in fact, where deeme d by the people working in the personal care field, an ability for those people to look after their housekeeping needs, the vacuuming and the laundry, they will be expected to do so. That, Mr. Speaker, is the only thing we are talking about here, nothing more. Deputy Premier's Intervention Mr.

Conrad Sant os (Broadway): Considering that even the Manitoba Society of Seniors is schedu led now to hold a rally in the legislative grounds this Wednesday to protest these unjust acts on seni ors and the di sabled, will the honourable acting First Minister talk to his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and persuade him to put a hold on these adverse changes in the Home Care Program, so these people can continue with their independent living in their own homes? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premie r): Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the Minister of Health and this government, when you look at

July 19, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5659 the record of putting some $69 million now in the home care field compared to $38 million that was in the home care field when we took office some five years ago, I do not believe our Minister of Health has to make any apology. What is happening is an advancement and a continuation of the polices that were in place in 1985 introduced by Howard Pawley, where, in fact, individuals in the seniors community who are able to pay for housekeeping needs will be expected to do so. Mr. Santos: Mr.

Speaker, will the honourable acting First Minister talk to his Minister of Health (Mr. Orchard) and persuade his Minister of Health that the changes in imposing user fees on ostomies and on equipment in the Home Care Program are doing injustice to people who cannot afford them and therefore are depriving them of the opportunity to maintain their self-es teem and self-respec t in living in their homes? Mr. Downey: Mr.

Spea ker, I can assure the member that I will speak to the Minister of Health, and I can assure him that in that discussion, what will be disclo sed is tha t the poli cies being administered by this government are the same as those that were introduced in 1985 by Howard Pawley and the NDP government. I will, as well, make sure that all of the people of Manitoba, seniors and all the people, get the true message as to what is happening and being carried out by this government. * (1 355) Home Care Program Impact of Program Reductions Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, the only difference between that policy is they have removed $3 million from the budget. They are now charging for home care supplies. You now have to pay $300 for ostomy supplies. Mr. Speaker, will the acting Premier at least be forthright with the public and advise them that this drastic change is causing hardship to seniors and the disabled, and will he make that announcement before the rally scheduled for this Wednesday? Hon. Jame s Downey (Deputy Premier) : Mr. Speaker, what I will assure the member of, as the Minister of Health (Mr.

Orchard) has done, is that in those area s tha t per tai n to health care and essential needs of the seniors in our society, they will be looked after. We have increased the Home Care budget by some $30 million-plus in five years. I think the seniors can well sort out for themselves that we are in fact looking after those essential needs and will continue to do so. That is the message the Minister of Health will continue to put out. Gretchen Family Romanian Adoption Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr. Speaker, my supplemen tary to the Hea lth minister (Mr.

Orchar d): Given the very unique situatio n regarding the Gretchen family insofar as a sister is now adopted and the fact they have al ready adopted the child in Romania, will this government take another look at the very unique circumstances of this situation and will the government consider having the family not have to post a $200,000-plus bond? Hon. James Downe y (Deputy Premi er) : Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Health. Mr. Chomlak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplemen­ tary to the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) in regard to that same que stion: I understand the Gretchen family has requested a meeting with the Premier to be able to present their specific circumstances. Will the Premier undertake to meet with the family in or der that he can hear their par ticular circumstances? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice as well for the First Minister. Child Abuse Foster Home Statistics Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs (R iver Hei ghts) : My question is to the Family Services minister. Mr.

Speaker, when a child is taken from a family it is normally done so because they have been physically or sexually assaulted, or where there are strong allegations to believe that they have been sexually or physically assaulted, that child is then normally placed in foster care. If even a third of the allegations we heard this weekend are correct, then those children are being betrayed a second time. But perhaps what shocked me more than anything else was the information that the Department of Family Services keeps no statistics of the number of children who have been abused in foster care.

5660 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 Will the Minister of Family Services explain why they do not keep such statistics? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, those statistics are kept by the agencies, and this morning I have instructed my staff to be sure that the agencies regularly pass those statistics on to the department. Children's Advocate Independence Mrs.

Sharon Car stalrs {Ri ver Heig hts) : I congratulate the minister in doing a positive action on this particular case, but will the minister explain to the House now why the Child Advocate's office is not independent from his office, when it is only the Child Advocate who can apparently now advocate on behalf of these children since they are abused not only in their own family in some instances but also in their foster family, which is the agency of government? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, the Child Advocate works under legislation that this House unanimously passed in the fast session. I indicated in an earlier answer that the Advocate is cu rrently in the final stages of hiring. The purpose of the Advocate is to look after the rights, interests and viewpoint of the children that come into care . The office has been modeled after offices in Alberta and Ontario, where it works successfully. I would remind the me mber that part of the legislation is after the Child Advocate has had some experience over the next three years that we will review the legislation under which he operates. Mrs.

Carstalrs: Mr. Speaker, the minister is well aware that none of the opposition parties supported the concept of a C hild Advoca te not be ing independent from the ministry. Foster Parents Training Support Mrs. Sharon Carstalrs {R iver Hei ghts) : My question to the minister: Can he tell the House today how training is to be provided for foster parents when the training budget dollars given to the Manitoba Foster Family Association was cut and the Child and Fam ily Services agencies funding was also cut?

Wher e ar e the foster parents to get the kind of training to prevent the kind of abuse which is obviously going on out there? *

(1400) Hon. Harold Gllleshammer {Minister of Family Services): Mr. Sp eaker, the agencies have traditionally been responsible for the recruitment and the licensing of agencies. Now they will also be responsible for the training component. We have had the agencies dedicate 50 cents per day for every child in care. That degree of funding is $571 ,000 which the agencies can use for the ongoing training of foster parents. That figur e exceeds the amount of money that was dedicated through the Foster Family Association in the past for that particular function. Swan River Area Rail Line Repairs Ms.

Rosann Wowc huk {Swan River ) : Mr. Speaker, the flash flood in the Swan River area fast week caused a tremendous amount of damage to the railway lines. As a result, there is no service on the Cowan sub or on the Erwood sub. Farmers cannot deliver grain either at Minitonas or at Birch River. We are told that the repairs are indefinite as to when they are going to take place. Can the Minister of Highways and Transportation tell us what conversations he has had with CN and what assurances he can give farmers that these lines will be repaired and they will be able to deliver grain at those elevators? Hon.

Albert Driedger {Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, this question was raised last week. Staff have been getting in touch with CN. We are trying to get a definitive answer exactly as to a specific time frame as to how long it will take until these repairs get completed. We do not have that at the present time. We know the dilemma that the farmers are in, in terms of grain movement, and we are trying to work together with the railway to see whether we can accommodate it somehow.

I am very pleased to also announce that fate yesterday afternoon High way 1 0 is now open and traffic is flowing through again.

July 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5661 Swan River Area Rail Line Repairs Ms. Rosann Wowchuk {Swan River}: I thank the minister for that answer. I am sur e people in the Mafeking area are very pleased to finally have that road open. Can the minister tell us then, since this area was declared a disaster area, does the same funding formula apply to CN to repair the lines as applies to municipalities? Has he had that discussion with the federal government about putting funds in to repair the CN lines in that area? Hon. Gerald Ducharme {Minister of Government Services}: Mr.

Speaker, first of all to the member, CN works on their own in regard to the disaster area. The Disaster Assistance Board that we have arrangements-and we look after the municipal and the private. Those are the ones that will be looked after by our Disaster Assistance in a formula we have with the federal government. Swan River Area Crop Year Extension Ms. Rosann Wowchuk {Swan River }: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is to the Minister of Agriculture.

Since the farmers in the area are under tremen­ dous financial pressure and cannot afford to lose their quota for this year and the crop year is ending on July 31 , has the minister had any discussion with the Canadian Wheat Board about extending the quota until such time as the lines are repaired so they can sell their grain under this crop year's quota? Hon. Glen Findlay {Minister of Agriculture}: Mr. Speaker, in past circumstances where there has been difficulty by farmers to get grain delivered, the Wheat Board has usually been very lenient in terms of extending the end of the crop year.

The memb er can rest assured that I will be asking the Wheat Board if they plan to do that up there, but I am pretty sure they have already moved in that direction because they have always done it in the past. 811143 Justification Mr. Gregory Dewar {Selkirk}: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation (Mrs. Mcintosh). Today in committee, concerns were raised about this government's plans for gam bling and the expansion of gaming initiatives in this province, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that Bill 43 changes the status of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation to that of a Crown corporation, will the minister now confirm that the purpose of this move is to create an arm 's-length relationship that would allow the government to deflect criticisms of the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation? Hon. James Downe y {Deputy Premi er}: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the minister. Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, I will table the briefing notes leaked to us which state that the purpose of Bill 43 is to deflec t criticism of gove rnment expansion of gaming in this province.

Why is this government pretending that the changes to the Crown corporation will remove this government from responsibility for the explosion of gaming in this province? Mr. Downey: Mr. Speake r, not accepting the method by which they received their information, I will take that question as notice for the minister. Gambling Impact on Veterans• Organizations Mr. Gregory Dewar {Selkirk}: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate, but it appears that several veterans' organizations will be forced to close this year because of the members opposite, because of their gaming policy.

What action is the Minister responsible for Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson) prepared to take to pr event the clo sur e of these veterans' organizations? Hon. James Downey {Deputy Premi er}: Mr. Speaker, just in taking the question as notice, I can assure the member that the members on this side of the House and the work that my colleague the Minister responsible for Lotteries has done to make sure that the legions of this province have received some acknowledgement in forwarding additional funds, is one area of demonstration of support for those individuals.

5662 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 Pon of Churchill Grain Expons Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Mr. Speaker, next week marks the 50th Annual Convention for the Hudson Bay Route Association, which will be holding their convention in Chur chill, Manitoba. We are pleased not only that the 50th annual convention will be held in Churchill because of the his toric sig nificance, but als o because th e employees of the port have been called back to full-time duties from layoffs.

I want to ask the Minister of High ways and Transportation: Can he indicate for the benefit of members of this House what volumes of grain will be exported through the Port of Churchill this year? Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Mr. Speaker, ther e is a commitment of, I believe, 75,000 tonnes at the present time and there is speculation that- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Mr. Driedger : Mr. Speak er, tha t is the commitment that is made now. I have also had ru mours, conjectures, nothing defi nitive.

The Wheat Board does not give you anything definite until they have the sale made. We are still hopeful that it will be well over 300,000 tonnes by the time we get through with this season, which is still not acceptable because we still have to get that figure of 500,000 tonnes before it is going to be viable to operate that port. Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, we had been hoping to hear somewhere in the line of a million metric tonnes, not the 300,000 that have been historic with this government. Arctic Bridge Agreement Status Repon Mr.

Daryl Reid (Transcona): Can the minister report on any successes that this government has had with respect to the Arctic Bridge agreement, Mr. Spea ker, in dealin g with Rus sia? What successes can they report to the House that they have had with respect to that agreement? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier) : Mr. Speaker, the first success is that this government have acknowledged the need to try to diversify the activity that takes place through the Port of Churchill, something that the opposition have long left out of their vision of the opportunities for Churchill. Mr.

Speaker, as well, the work that the Minister of Hig hways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) has done to continue to encour age the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and the Wheat Board to continue to move grain, I believe has brought forward some evidence of support. Mr. Reid: Since he ma de the state ment on February 17 of this year that said, the feasibility study could produce results as early as the summer of 1993, can the Deputy Premier indicate what results his agreement with Russia has produced by way of betterment for the province of Manitoba? Mr. Downey: Again, Mr.

Speaker, what it is, is an acknowledgement of other opportunities for the Port of Churchill, and it is being worked upon, whether it is in the potential for the spaceport, whether it is potential in shipment of other products from Russia this way. That is actively being worked on at this particular time. When there is a report and anything further to inform this House or the people of Manitoba about, I will be doing so. School Division Boundary Review Consultations Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, much of what this government is doing is veiled in secrecy.

Last week I asked, for exam ple, the Minister of Education what her plans were of the government with regard to boundary review for school divisions in this province and received no answer. Can the Minister of Education indicate today that she will not impose a boundary solution but will, in fact, put in place a process of review under which the educational partners are having input, will have input and will be consulted on all aspects of it? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Education and Training): The member did ask a question on boundary review last week, and it seemed to me he put forward before the House last week a proposal, which I think if he looks back, was the proposal of that party when they were in government for the boundaries of this province. Mr. Speaker, I have made it very clear, I will be making that announcement very shortly, and the memb er will then have the opportunity to look at the

July 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5663 plan, but he put forward what previously they would liked to have laid out for the province. * (141 0) Announcement Mr. John Plohman {Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, clearly the minister is afraid to put her position forward before the Legislature is out. I have to ask the Minister of Education: Why is she delaying the announcement while this House is in session? Is it because she does not want to be questioned about her announcement before the people of Manitoba in this set ting, in this Legislature? Hon.

Rosemary Vodrey {Minister of Education and Trainin g): The announcem ent I will be ma king on behalf of government for boundary review will be very shortly. Mr. Plohman: Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask whethe r it will be before this House adjourns, because clearly the minister seems to be afraid to report to this House and is afraid to follow what is normal practice in parliamentary democracy, which is to report to this particular Chamber. Will she com mit today to ma king this announcement while we are still in session, so that we can question the minister on all aspects of that particular proposal? Mrs.

Vodrey: Again, the answer is still the same. I will be making an announcement very shortly. Gambling Facilities Promotion Objectives Mr. Pa ul Edwa rds {Lea der of the Second Opposition): My ques tion is for the De put y Premier. Mr. Speaker, on Friday last week, the Minister of Lotteries (Mrs. Mitchelson) indicated in response to a question from me that the reason they were going to be sending out mem bership card applications and continuing to spend millions of dolla rs to prom ote lotteries was to ste m the flo w of Manitobans spending their lotte ries dollar s elsewhere.

In fact, we learned in a report over the weekend that this flow of dollars to gamble in the United States has not decr eased . In fact, they ar e thanking us for raising public levels of gambling. My ques tion for the De puty Premier : What substantive report assessment does he have to produce to prove in any way, shape or form that the millions of dollars being spent by this government to promote gambling stem the flow of gambling dollars to the United States? Hon. James Downey {Deputy Premi er) : Mr.

Speaker, I will take that question as notice for the Minister of Lotteries, but in doing so, I would like to as sur e the memb er that we have far mor e information than what his party had or his colleague had- Mr. Speaker: Order, please . The honourable minister has already indicated that he has taken the question as notice. Minors-Game Restrictions Mr. Paul Edwards {Lead er of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, my su ppleme ntary question for the minister is: Can he indicate-in the form sent out by the Lotteries Foundation it indicates that no admittance to anyone under 14 yea rs of age ; someo ne under 18 mus t be accompanied by a parent, guardian or spouse; no one under 18 allowed to play electronic games. What is there to be played by minors under the age of 18? Nonelectronic games? Can the minister indicate what they are selling to minors to gamble with in- Mr. Speak er: Order, please . The honourable member has put his question. Hon. James Downey {Deputy Premier): Mr.

Speaker, let me assure the mem ber that this government is handling responsibly the issue which has been raised. My colleague is very much dealing responsibly with the issues of lotteries and lotteries activities in the province of Manitoba. Having said that I will take it as notice, the question- Mr. Speak er: Order, please. The honourable minister has already answered the question. Minors-Entrance Statistics Mr. Paul Edwards {Le ader of the Second Opposition): Can the minister indicate wh at percentage of the people who are coming to these gambling palaces are indeed under the age of 14?

Can he indicate how many people have entered, out of these some 200,000 who have visited these palaces, who are under the age of 18 and precisely

5664 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 how mu ch those minors are spending in these gambling palaces in this province? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): Mr. Speaker, not accepting any of the comments of the member previous to the taking of notice, I will take the question as notice and get the information. Child Abuse High Risk Indicators Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington) : Mr. Speaker, earlier today in Question Period, the Minister of Family Services stated in answering a question from the mem ber for Burrows (Mr.

Martindale) that the Family Services department was implementing a high-risk indicator program and computerization, both of which are excellent programs. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services what he intends to do with those children who are currently identified as high risk and will most certainly be identified as high risk afte r the high-r isk indicator becomes full y operational, when his government is cutting- Mr. Speak er: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question. Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Fir st and fore mo st, the high -risk indicators are used at the front end to determine whether this is a child who needs to be taken into care. By and large, that is the appropriate time to use that. Once taken into care, Manitoba has an array of trea tment centres such as Macdonald Youth Services, Children's Home and others, whereby agencies have to ma ke a prof essional determination about the most appropriate care that child should be in. Agencies are constantly in dialogue with those treatment centres to see that the child does receive the appropriate care.

Ms. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, those very programs are the programs that are being cut. What is the Minister of Family Services going to do for those high-ris k children who have already been identified in our system and who are now spending time in inappropriate foster care families, in motels and in insecure, unsafe situations? What is he going- Mr. Speaker : Orde r, please. The honourable member has put her question. Mr. Gllleshammer: We will continue to work with the agencies so that they have the tools to make the appropriate decisions.

I have a great deal of respect for those professional social workers, their supervisors, the directors of the agencies that they will place children in the most appropriate care. However, having said that, the recruitment of foster homes is an ongoing task that the agencies are involved in. They continue to apply the standards that have been set in place for over a decade now to find those appropriate placements. In some cases, the decision to place children in foster homes is the most appropr iate. In other cases, they will go to the various levels of treatment facilities. Mr.

Speaker: Time for Oral Qu estions has expired. Committee Changes Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the memb e r for St. Vital (Mr s. Render), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendments for the 9 a.m., July 19 session be amended as fol lows: the member for Assiniboia (Mrs. Mcintosh) for the member for River East (Mrs. Mitchelson). I move, seconded by the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr.

Pallister), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Law Amendments, again, this is for the 9 a.m., July 19 sitting, be amended as fo ll ows: the me mb er for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) for the member for Ste. Rose (Mr. Cummings). Motions agreed to. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, is there a willingness of the House to waive private members' hour? Mr. Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? [agreed] Mr. Manness: Mr.

Speak er, I will be ma king announcements on committees sometime a little bit later this afte rnoon, but there will be some committee changes. At this time, would you call Bill41 .

July 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5665 DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS 811141-The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) , Bill 41, The Pr ov incia l Parks and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les pa res pro vinciaux et app or tant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows (Mr. Martindale). Stand? Is there leave? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No, leave is denied. Point of Order Mr.

Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, the memb er for Bu rrows (Mr. Martindale) is prepared to speak on the bill, but he was deferring to the Liberal Leader as a matter of courtesy, and we would ask the bill be called again immediately after the Liberal Leader speaks. Mr. Speaker: Is there leave at this time to allow Bill 41 to remain standing in the name of the honourable member for Burrows? Is there leave, as the House has already indicated that there was no leave? Yes, there is leave? [agreed] *** Mr. Paul Edwards (Le ader of the Second Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, I stand today to speak on Bill 41 , The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act. Let me say at the outset that this bill constitutes for us, for our party, a very large disappointment. I will articulate some of the reasons for that in general terms, but I also want to simply indicate that as the bill currently stands, we find we cannot support it. We have been waiting for a long time for a new parks act, and it is indeed regrettable to us that this act has come forward in its current form. Now, Mr.

Speaker, having said that, we, of course, lo ok forward to the very many prese ntations which I unde rstand have been scheduled to be made at the committee stage, and we will listen very closely to those. But, Mr.

Speaker, one of the largest difficulties I have with this bill is that it continues to entrench, not just to deal with past commitments on logging rights and licences which were let in provincial parks, but puts into place a procedure, albeit one that there is some consultation over, but puts into place a legislated framework for continuing to grant new lice nces, to do virtu ally anything inside provincial parks. That power ultimately rests with the responsible minister. *

(1420) Mr. Speaker, as there often is in these, there is a very, very broad, and written with a certain amount of flourish, pr eamble wh ich tal ks about the provincial parks being special places that play an important role in the protection, and the word there is "protection," of natural lands and the quality of life of Manitobans.

It talks about: "WHEREAS existing and future provincial parks should be managed in a manner consistent with the pri nciples of sus tainable development so that representative examples of diverse natural and cultural heritage are conserved and appr op riate economic opp ortu nites are provided." It is with that last portion that I take issue with the minister's and the gove rnment's view of the economic opportunities available in parks.

Their view of those economic opportunities are based in large part on resource extraction in those provincial parks, not simply on the tourism and the recr ea tional aspe cts and the economic oppor tu nities which flow from that, but from resource extraction. So, Mr. Speaker, I find that the government's view of that statement is inconsistent and indeed contradictory with the earlier statement in the

preamble that the provincial parks are to play an important role in the protection of natural lands in the province. Mr. Speak er, I want to jus t indicate tha t I understand the importance of logging and forestry in this province. I understand that it is a very large indus try in this pro vince. I unde rstand the importance of the mining industry.

I have spoken on many, many occasions on the importance of those industries and support the government's -any efforts they make to encourage investment in those areas and the creation of jobs for Manitobans in those areas; however, we also need to have land set aside which does not become subject to the same type of economic decisions that occur around the province.

5666 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 That is what a park is. It should mean something in terms of the protection of the natural habitat. The

preamble says that. I would like to hold the government to their

preamble. It sounds good; it is good. Why is it not brought out in the details of the ad? Mr. Speaker, the fact is that aside from all of the process impr ovements-and they are there in terms of management committees, development of a plan and different classifications of provincial parks-the fact is that if you look at

Section 7(5), the restrictions in a wilderness park or in an area of any other provincial park that is categorized as a wilderness, backcountry or heritage land use, that talks about no person engaging in logging, mining or the development of oil. But that it is a very restricted part of this overall scheme. That is one part of the scheme. The fact is that by making that exception, the rule becomes that those things are allowed: logging, mining, developm ent of oil, petroleu m, natural gas or hydroelectric power.

Now, the only defence that I have heard from this government, to continuing resource extraction as a part of our parks strategy, is they say, we made commitments, logging rights, licences were let, we cannot simply confiscate those, make those valueless at this point. We have commitments which we have to keep. I accept that there are commitments which we need to honour, either buy them out or honour them. I am prepared to discuss and learn about the extent of those commitments, and honour them.

Why are we putting into this act, the provision, the ability to continue that practice and indeed grant new licences, new permits for mining and logging in our provincial parks? That is the only defence that I have heard from the government to continuing resource extraction as a part of our so-cal led parks strategy. Mr. Speaker, I look forward to hearing from the minister, because I do not see it in his comments on the bill, and the Premier (Mr.

Filmon), who also has made efforts to defend this legislation, as to why they want to continue to have the right to grant new, not respect old, but grant new resource extraction rights and licences in our provincial parks. Mr. Speaker, I think the government has to be prepared to have the terminology "park" and the designation "park" mean something, more than perhaps a slightly more cumbersome process to get the resource extraction permit. It denotes in the public mind that the land has been set aside, that it is being preserved and that there are obviously economic opportunities like recreation, tourism.

We want that, but the public does not believe and I think has been led to not believe that resource extraction is a part of the strategy. I see in here, once you cut away all of the new buzzwords and the processes, and I have already said some of which I am in favour of and I think are go�the consu ltation and the need to have plans in place-but once you cut all that away, the bottom line is the minister will make the decision. That is what happened with The Wildlife Act last session.

We are bringing into the minister's control the ability essentially to bypass in any way he deems fit all of the other nice words in this act. Again, it is a lot like The Wildlife Act. I feel a bit like deja vu. We are going through it again. There is lots of good language in here, but at the end of the day, none of it sticks. It is executive authority which is going to rule the day on this, Mr. Speaker, and it is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council who makes those designations at the end of the day. Mr.

Sp eak er, I be lieve we should giv e Manitobans a higher level of assuredness that we really do want to, and let me quote the

preamble, create special places that play an important role in the protection of natural lands. That is what parks are about to me, the protection of natural lands. I do not see in here any ultimate protection of those natural lands for current Manitobans and future generations. Mr. Speaker, that, in a nutshell, is my major complaint with this bill. Let me also talk on the second major head of concern I have about the concerns that many who own property in the parks have with this bill. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, there are ma ny individu als in the pr ovince who have ma de significant investments in our parks.

They have consistently complained that they do not receive a level of services, and so they have banded together in many circumstances to give themselves those services-road clearing, garbage pickup and those types of things. (Mrs. Louise Dacquay, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair) What has come into place here now is the Parks Branch, the minister essentially, being able to

July 19, 1993 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5667 impose those levies, akin to taxes, property taxes of a sort, without the same commitment to the level of services, and secondly, of course, there is the problem of representation and how those people who have that property, who own that property are going to be adequately able to hold the people who are levying the tax accountable. It is a principle which is well enough known in our culture and our system, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is called no taxation without representation.

It was a principle that the United States revolution was fought on, and I do not mean to add inflammatory comments to this debate, but it is the same principle. I have met with rep resentatives from these various organizations, and they have very serious concerns, indeed. I know that they will be coming forward. I suspect that they are a significant portion of the 17 0-odd people who are listed to present, and I look forward to their fuller discussion on these points. *

(1430) What the legislation essentially says is that the minister will decide what the payments shall be, not only for current costs, but for any previous deficits. That is what I am led to believe. An Honourable Member: It sounds pretty fair to me. Mr. Edwards: The mi nister says that sounds pretty fair to him. I suspect that he as a taxpayer would not stand for this.

He as a minister is prepared to put it into place. [interjection] I am sure he does pay taxes, but I suspectthatthe Minister of Natural Resources would be the first in this House to want to abide by the age-old principle that you should not have to pay taxes unless you also have an opportunity through direct representation and elections to determine who makes the decision. Madam Deputy Speaker, it is not good enough for a small group spread out over this province to have som e indirect control over the mi nister through the general election or nonelection of the government. That is not good enough.

You need direct ability as an entity, as a region, as a group to determine who should set those taxes and deliver those services. That, I think, is the philosophical mistake that is being made by this government; it is not offering that direct link between taxation and representation. Madam Deputy Speaker, as I said at the outset, this bill is a very grave disappointment to our party. We look forward to a parks act that would raise the stature of Manitoba in the national parks scene. I do not see this as doing that.

I see it as, in fact, confirm ing our very low ranking overall in this country in terms of our ability and our commitment to protecting the natural habitat that we have set aside as parks. I want the minister between now and when we get to committee to think long and hard about the word "pr otecti on," because pro tecti on, as I understand it, does not envisage extraction of resources. It involves the preservation of those resources. That is what the word "protection" means. It was important enough for him to put in the opening

preamble statement, and I would like him to think about the word "protection" and what it means to him because it does not mean to me having

an act which you could drive a Mack truck through in terms of getting new rights to extract resources. I have no problem honouring past commitments, forestry licences and mining licences. That is not my problem. We could have grandfathered those in this act, but we have done something else. We have continued the right to grant new licences, and that is a large disappointment.

The government is continuing to want at an executive level-not coming through this House to change the act, but rather at an executive level, the Lieutenant-Gove rnor-in-Council and the Orders­ in-Council which flow-to preserve unto itself on an ad hoc basis, from time to time, from place to place, from area to area, to bypass the whole essence of the parks act and continue to allow resou rce extraction economic activity to take place on a continuing new basis into the futu re . That is inconsistent with the whole principle of parks, Madam Deputy Speaker. I call the Deputy Premier (Mr.

Downey) and I call the minister to think long and hard about what they meant by special places that play an important role in the protection of natural lands. I want to hear from them at the comm ittee how they define protection and how they equ ate protection of natural resources with a legislated statutory right to continue to extract those natural resources from these natural, special places in this province. I want to understand from them what guarantee ultimately, other than procedural steps, they can give to Manitobans that when they set aside a park,

5668 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 they mean business in terms of protecting those parks for future generations, and that means preserving the natural habitat, the flora and fauna in those areas against the incursion of resource extraction activities. We have massive areas in this province where those can take place. Madam Deputy Speaker, I dare say we in this province surely can see our way to set aside parks and have those parks mean something for the protection of those flora and fauna for future generations. We will oppose this legis lation as cur rently written.

At this stage, we will listen closely to the proposals for amendment at the committee stage. Unless this bill is radically altered in the key areas I have outlined today, I can see no other recourse but to continue to object to and oppose this legislation as it works its way through the legislative process. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. • (1 440) Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak on this bill. It is a very important bill.

It deals with long-standing difficult issues in the province, and I think there are a number of people who are disappointed in the way the government has chosen to deal with these issues. In consu lta tion with gr oups interested in parklands in the province, it is described by them as a travesty and as flying in the face of sustainable development which the government continues to claim that they understand and support. As I said, it is trying to deal with contentious issues in sustainable development, with resource extraction and areas to be protected.

I think the bill is failing to do that in a way that is going to serve the long-term interests of our natural heritage and essentially the province. It deals with the essence of the purpose of parks. That is the main problem that so many of us have with the legi sla tion, is it is radi cally and dramatic ally changing why we have provincial parks, and it is going backwards. The previous legislation which was developed I think over 20 years ago was better than this in terms of environment and sustainability.

Even though we like to think that we are moving forward in that area, we can see from this legislation that the government is really only creating a facade or providing lip service to a number of principles of protection, of diversity. We have seen through the unsaid process in Brazil that Canada was one of the cou ntries that signed the biodiversity treaty, but this legislation is not in keeping with those kinds of agreements.

A number of other agreements this government has signed in terms of endangered spaces, in terms of wildlife protection, are not in keeping with the principle this bill sets out, and, as we have heard, that is that parks are now, in Manitoba, there for economic development as a purpose. That is set out in a number of areas of the bill. It is set out in a contradictory way, as well, because when the bill first starts out talking about the purpose of parks as being in one paragraph for protection of natural lands and the quality of life of Manitobans, right in the next part of the

preamble in the legislation, it has the phrase, and appropriate economic opportunities are provided. So it is contradicting itself in the legislation and it is leaving, once again, as we have seen more and more from this gove rnment, a lot of discretion up to the minister. We can speculate for a minute on some of the reasons that the government would do this. We can talk about their wanting to prevent any kind of chall enges , cou rt challenges, that could come forward with respect to some of the agreeme nts they have signed and the direction that resource extraction is taking in the province.

We can also look at the recommendations that came forward from the Clean Environment Comm ission which now, I guess, would be very imp ossi ble to implem ent, and they would be protected from having any kind of court action stem from those kinds of recommendations. I think tha t many people in Manitoba ar e surprised when they learn the amount of resource extraction that does go on in parks. They have this idea that parks are there for recreation and the enjoyment of nature and that we will have regions of the province that are protected.

We only have one park in Manitoba that is a wildlife preserve, and this does not lead us to believe that there are going to be large areas like that protected under this new plan because of a patchwork kind of parks system that is going to be developed under the proposal.

July 19, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 5669 The fact that the legislation is saying that there must now be a systems plan and a management plan for each park is positive, but the fact that there is so mu ch of the discretion, particularly under the systems plan, left up to the minister's discretion and that there is no requirement for consultation in this area is a big concern. Th is area also cou ld su persede The Environment Act so that we would not have full public hearings, all the information in the public registry, and public announcements, which are all part of The Environment Act.

This syst em' s plan is, in some ways, the important area because that is part of the plan that is going to designate which part of the province is going to be protected and which is not. That is where we are going to be dealing, in a large sense, with all of the competing interests. It is interesting to note that this legislation is coming in at a time when we still do not have a forestry policy in the province. We still do not have the government dealing with the fact that we have been operating on an ad hoc basis in terms of forestry policy. We cannot continue to go in this direction.

We cannot continue to have the government, on the one hand, saying that they are committed to the Endanger ed Spaces Campaign, but to have nothing in the legislation that is going to indicate how they are going to arrive at this. We know that the mi nister is not doing well in term s of that campaign. We are waiting to see some concrete action plans, and we are waiting to see how it is that that commitment is going to be maintained under this bill.

When I was talking before about the systems plan, it is important to recognize that the patchwork in each park of having reso ur ce, econom ic development, recreation and some small areas protected in one park is not going to be in keeping with the needs of wildli fe and the needs of ma intaining the variety of ecosy stems in the province that this government has said that they are committed to doing. Some of the new classifications outlined in the bill are quite misleading, and it is clear that the government just is not being up front when they talk about a natural park.

But then they say that it is • . .. to accomm odate a diversity of recreational opportunities and resource uses." Well, this is not a part of what one would think of as a natural park. It is disconcerting to think that we could have something designated, an area designated as a natural park, and then have areas within that that are being turned into what actually would be an industrial park, would actually be there for the purpose of resource extraction.

So one of the things that we would be asking for is: Let us be a little bit more clear and honest with the kinds of headings that we are using to designate certain areas as natural. One of the other things that is positive is that we now would like to think there is going to be more incumbency on the government to follow through with what is already outlined in regulations. There are already 12 regulations for classifications, and there are regulations that are in place saying that the government has to develop management plans on parks, but they have not been following through on this.

We now have this simply put into legislation. I do not know if that is going to strengthen the government's commitment to doing that or if it is going to mean that there will be more incumbency on them to follow through, but we still have not seen any kind of time frame on that. It is still qui te concerning to think, with the number of staff that are available in the department, that it could still be a long time before we see all the parks in Manitoba having the management plans and see the kind of system for parks that is outlined in the legislation.

There are some other concerns with the land use categories, what they are trying to do, even in the wilde rness area in Manitoba and Atikaki Park. What is happening is they are trying to ensure that some of the roads in there and the development there are going to be made legitimate or are going to be allowed. The regulations now currently in place allo w the lodges in Atikaki Park as nonconforming uses. The way that the wording, though, is in the land-use category is going to make the provision for them even more lenient.

I think one of the other things that we have to look at in terms of the legislation is how this government is going to conduct the consultations. We had some concern with the meetings on lands and special pl aces booklet, the sus tainable development booklet, that there was not the same kind of

part ici pation by all groups that are interested. I am concerned that we will see an overrepresentation, particularly in certain areas of

5670 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA July 19, 1993 the province, that would sway the decisions of the government. I think that has happened in the past. In terms of the fees for housing and cottage development in parks, I think it is moving in a direction that we have to have some kind of fair tax revenue collected for people in the province, no matter where they live.

It is unfortunate that in some provincial parks in the province we have so much development, even though the area is in a park, that it seems to be a municipality and that it should have some kind of special designation other than what it has. * (1 450) Maybe in closing I will just talk briefly about one of the ways the government has excused itself from the resource extraction in provincial parks, and that is to say that in many cases, those areas were designated for resource use prior to the parks being there, but when you look at how they have moved with other legislation, Bill 22, for example, you can see they have very little regard for agreements made with their own workers and that they can legislate changes in those areas, so we can also see that there could be negotiated changes made in areas pertaining to provincial parks.

I am not saying tha t shou ld be done in a heavy-handed way. I do not think anyone is saying that we should be eliminating jobs, but I think as we keep hearing that times are changing and we have statements such as that coming from the round table on a regular basis, that we have to start seriously looking at how we have done things in the past and how that has destroyed so much of our natural environmental wealth and how that has destroyed so much of our planet. We have to start looking at how we can change legislation and change our practices so that is going to not happen in the future.

This bill does not do that. This bill continues to place the economic use of our wilderness areas ahead of other uses. As I said at the beginning, that is very clear because it is going backward and it is being more permissive to development than the previous legislation. I think the government has not lived up to its commitment with this bill. We have been looking forward to it for quite awhile in this province, and it is going to, I think, put Manitoba even further behind in terms of protection of areas.

It is going to mean there will be, I think, ongoing conflict in a lot of areas in the province in the way the system is going to be developed with consultations. I think we are going to see some very heated meetings in the future throughout the province under this legislation. With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will close my remarks and just reiterate that this legislation is not in ke epin g wi th any mo vemen t towar d sustainable use of our wilderness areas, and I am quite disappointed in the legislation. Thank you. Mr.

Doug Martindale (Burrows): Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about some of Manitoba's beautiful provincial parks which I have had the pleasure of visiting over the years. There are many I have not visited, but there are a number that I have, almost always with our family and usually camping with our tent trailer. The parks we have been to have all been quite different [interjection] Yes, my colleague for the Interlake says I should mention Hecla. In fact, this past weekend I was at Hecla Provincial Park.

I had been there before, but it was the first time we went on some of the walking trails and drove through the campgrounds and looked at the cabins that are for rent there. I promised my children I would go back there tenting. So, hopefully, later this summer, if we ever get out of here, we can go camping at Hecla Provincial Park. [inte�ection] We ll, I ac tually noticed some thi ngs tha t concerned me that I was going to report to the park gate, but I was in a hurry when I left. I will pass on those concerns.

I do not know whether it is because of this government's cutbacks or not, and it would not be fair to say it was because I do not know about the level of service in the past as opposed to level of service in that park in the present and whether the staff are underworked or overworked or whatever. While I was there, we went to Hecla village, and they were having a reunion for the people who had come from Hecla. So the former schoolhouse was open, and the house museum was open. It was quite interesting. I talked to some of the former residen ts ther e .

I think the gov ernment has commemorated a number of the historic sites there and made it interesting for visitors like ourselves to visit. I have visi ted and cam ped in Bir ds Hill, Whiteshell, Turtle Mountain, Spruce Woods, Duck Mountain and Hecla Provincial Park. We have had

July 19, 1993 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5671 some good luck when it comes to weather and some bad luck. Last year we went to Spruce Woods, and we set up the tent trailer in the rain. We took it down in the morning in the rain. We went to Duck Mountain Provincial Park, and we set up the tent trailer in the rain and it rained all night, two nights in a row. We took it down again in the rain in the morning and drove back to the city.

So we are hoping to go back to Duck Mountain sometime when the weather is better so that we can enjoy that park. [interjection) As my colleague says, they need to fix the roads first. I assume that some of the roads were washed out with the recent flooding, but when the park is spruced up and back in shape, I look forward to going there. The act has a number of very interesting parts, and probably one of the more interesting parts is the purpose of provincial parks.

The minister spells out a numb er of different purp oses including conser vati on, preser vati on, recrea tion and education and economic opportunities. Probably the

section on economic opportunities will be the most controversial and probably the part that the public will have the most to say about, although I am sure that fees, particularly for cottagers, will be controversial as well. We have family friends who have a cottage in a provincial park, and I need to talk to them and find out what they feel about the fees. I am sure that this minister will hear many representations from the public about the fees and their relative fairness or unfairness.

The reason that we have this bill is that the government would like to clarify land use policy in pa rks and dev elop a fram ework for the development of future parks. Some of this is the result of the Clean Environment Commission report on Abitibi-Price logging and Nopiming Park. We certainly hope that this does provide some clarity, but we will have to wait and see.

I think a lot will proba bly depend on the regulations, as is often the case, and as to what this minister and his government enacts and over what period of time and what happens first and what happens last. [interjection) We will not be giving this minister 12 years to enact this bill; that is for sure. [interjection] Well, that is true, the electorate will ultimately decide that, but we would certainly hope that it would not be left to this government to take 12 terms to enact this legislation.

The issue of fees was supposed to be addressed last year, and the minister withdrew the bill, partly due to public concerns. Those concerns are still there, and I am sure the minister will be hearing about them during the committee stage. Also there was a desi re on the part of the government to put the classification and land use category scheme into the act instead of in the regulations. Quite often people have concerns about wh at is in the act and wh at is in the regulations.

From my short time here, I would say that usually people who are lobbying the government prefer to see things in the act, rather than in the regulations because they can see it up front. They know as soon as the bill is available what is in it,

whereas, fr equently, people do not have much trus t in government, and they say, well, the problem with the regulations is we do not know what they are going to be. We do not have public input before they are announced because Order-i n-Council means they are just announced. It is a cabinet decision. * (1 500) As to whether that is true in this case or not, I will reserve judgment. That does not necessarily mean that having things that were in the regulations in the act is an improvement. The bill has been promised by the minister for almost a year now.

It is supposed to be the cure-all for all the trouble spots, logging, the 12 percent campaign, the wilderness park development, the selling of parks, et cetera. It is doubtful that this will be the cure-all. No doubt, some of these issues and concerns will co ntinue for som e time, particularly if they are not addressed properly in this bill. The old classification scheme will remain for the most part but the land uses are now much clearer. Some things will be clearer, but some things will be more confusing.

The categories of land use will be in the bill, but each park will have its own classification which may lead to confusion. Each park will have its own classifi cation, land use category and management plan. All the parks -and I note there are 124 provincial parks-m ust go through public hearings and then receive their plans through cabinet order. Certainly, from appearances, it would appear that this is a good thing, to have public meetings

5672 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 and go through this process, but does that mean there will be consistency or a lack of consistency? I would suggest that if there are 124 parks and 124 sets of public meetings, and if ultimately we have 124 different descriptions for 124 different parks, there could be a lack of consistency. I will look forwara to the committee stage when we hear from the public as to whether people think this is an improvement or going backward.

The issue of fee for services for cottagers and new taxes on private landowners, no doubt, will be very contentious for those people who are affected. I expect a number of those people have probably already registered and we will hear from them. I have already heard the argument being used, no taxation without representation. No doubt, people will be using that argument. Landowners may be paying $500 per year plus other expenses that the government may not have to justify. All parks will be operated on a sustainable basis.

What does that mean, and how will the government recover those monies, and will it be for each particular park? This gove rnment has talked a lot about the endangered spaces 12 percent campaign. They talk about it as one of their envir onmental initiatives. They have certainly given it a lot of ink through press releases and speeches, et cetera, not just by this minister but by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and others. I do not think there is anything regarding the 12 percent campaign in this bill. The government has made a commitment to the program , and they have created a lot of public expe ctati ons.

In fact, there is proba bly a perception out there that the government is moving on this, but in fact I do not think there has been very much action on it. The government is giving powers in the bill to ensure that land is available for parks, through ex propriati on, et cetera. Of cou rse that is a concern because we have another bill on the Order Paper regarding changes to The Expropriation Act, which I began to speak on, on Friday afternoon. Hecla is probably a good example of what happens when there is an expropriation.

I was talking to someone who came from Hecla at the museum on Sunday afternoon, and she said, you know, it is too bad that the old people were not allowed to at least retire there and live out their lives there if they so chose. Now, I do not know whose government was in office when the expropriation took part. I am su re the Minister of Natu ral Resources (Mr. Enns) knows. So maybe I should not get into it; maybe I should not have raised that particular example.

But the change-[interjection] Well, I know what year the park op ened, and I know wh ose government was in office when the park was opened, but there is a change in The Expropriation Act. I believe that people will be able to go to court on matters of legal technicalities, matters of law, but not on matters of evaluation. Of course, that is always the most contentious part when it comes to government expropriating land. So there is a connection between these two bills.

If the government wants to expropriate land to set up a park, there is a question about the rights of the individual property owner, and whether or not that is being dealt with fairly. We have criticized this bill, and said the new process is not fair because of the lack of the appeal system- Hon. Har ry Enns (Min ister of Na tural Resources): Reverend, it is ge netically impossible for this government to treat anybody unfairly. Mr. Marti ndale: The Mi nister of Na tural Resour ces (Mr. Enns) says it is ge netically impossible for this government to treat anyone unfairly.

It is too bad the minister has already spoken to this bill or he might want to explain those remarks. I am not sure what that means. I do not think the minister knows what that means either. I am sure that if our member for Wellington (Ms. Barrett) has not spoken yet, she would be happy to try to expound on the meaning of that expression. The other concern that we have with this bill is that it is unclear what will be done to resolve aboriginal land claims such as in the Nopiming Park area, where the Sagkeeng Band has claimed an area that is being logged.

We should really, as legislators, keep this in mind with regard to every piece of legislation and every government action, because we know that land claims-and actually that is not the correct word-1 should not use the expression "land claims" in this context, we are really talking about treaty land entitlement. Because the treaties were signed, they were signe d in good faith betwe en our ances tors and aboriginal First Nati ons, and according to the terms of treaties, they were

July 19, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5673 entitled to a certain number of acres per family or per individual. Regrettably, the reserves were not measured to the amount of land tha t was prom ised in the trea ties. So now we have the trea ty land entitlemen t process in Ma nitoba and other provinces, which is trying to redress this historic wrong. We need-the government particularly, the government of the day-needs to keep this in mind with every piece of legislation to make sure that their legislation does not impact negatively on their legal and historic obligation to fulfill the treaties.

So I hope that does not happen with this bill. I hope that this bill does not negatively impact on the obligation of this government. Hon. James Downey (Mi nister of Northern Affairs): It will not. Mr. Martindale: The Minister of Northern Affairs says from his seat that it will not, and I would like to be able to say that I can take the minister at his word. I suppose I should say that, but there is a question here and I do not know the answer. So I would not want to draw any conclusions from his statement from his seat without knowing all the facts.

We will be watching to see if this bill, in fact, has an impact on Treaty Land Entitlement. The purposes for the parks which are laid out, some of them we agree with, and others we have concerns about. Cer tai nly conser vation is something that parks have always tried to do, and no one would quarrel wi th the pu rpose of conservation. No one would qu arre l with the purpose of preservation, particularly when it comes to unique species and unique landscapes or la ndforms or anything. Also , recreation and education, no one would have any quarrels with the purposes of recreation and education.

Certainly, those are probably the two parts of parks that the vast majority of the public enjoys the most, and that is recreation and education. Certainly that is the part of parks that my family and I enjoy the most. I wish I had had time to do a little research on this bill by talking to my mother, for example, who has often given guided tours on botany. My mother is an amateur botanist and guides tours through provincial parks and other places in southern Ontario.

In fact, she is one of these people who get special permission to go into protected areas where the public is not normally allowed in order to identify plant species. She is an expert on a few things like ferns and wild orchids. It is quite fascinating for her and other people to go out into a bog , for example -and many bogs are protect ed-to identify these species. [interjection) I think the minister would be better off if he hired her as an exp ert in order to say which areas shou ld be protected and which areas should be part of the Endangered Spaces Campaign.

An Honourable Member: If your mother were here, she would say, Doug, change parties. Mr.

Martindale: I think she would be a little more nonpartisan and would be more concerned with this legislation and what this government is doing, and particularly the environmental policies of this government and what they are not doing in terms of the environment. * (151 0) She belongs to the Fede ration of Ontario Naturalists and other organizations that have done a wonderful job as volunteers, as nongovernmental organizations, and what they are doing there is they are contributing money and voluntarily buying land to protect it so that it cannot be bought by private individuals and used any way they want.

I do not know if this exists in Manitoba. I have not read about any examples in Manitoba, but it is probably -well, I wou ld hope that this minister would encourage that kind of thing, that when the government does not have enough resources to buy all the land that they would like to buy, they would be open to having private citizens buy the land and put it into a land trust or some kind of trust vehicle, commu nity trust. There are a number of different vehicles in the United States and Canada- An Honourable Member: The Manitoba Hab itat Heritage Corporation does that. Mr.

Martindale: The Manitoba Hab itat He ritage Corporation. Well, I am glad to hear that they do that in Manitoba as well. It is certainly an idea that is widespread in the United States where people are buying, particularly, wetlands, but other kinds of land to preserve them for the public. Some of them, the public is welcome to use for recreation and other purp oses, and other lands are more protected and there are limits to the access that the public has. Certainly, they have fulfilled a very valuable role in terms of protecting endangered spaces and wildlife and unique kinds of habitat.

5674 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 19, 1993 Madam Deputy Speaker, we will be listening very carefully to the public presentations. I hope that the minister listens carefully as well. I hope that this mi nister, like some of his enligh tened colleagues -t her e ar e act ually one or two mem bers over there that amend their bills when they go to comm ittee , and we com mend that whenever it happens. It does not happen very often. It does not happen often enough. It has not happened on the bills that I am critic for this year; my amendments were voted down.

But I hope that this minister will listen to the public presentations and, if necessary, the opposition parties have amendments that the minister will listen to them and take those views into consideration and do the right thing. Thank you. Ms. Rosa nn Wowchuk (Swan River): Madam Deputy Speaker, 1- Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I have been duly informed by the cle rks that on July 13 leave to permit this bill to remain standing in the honourable mem ber for Swan River's name was denied.

Therefore, is there leave at this time to permit the honourable member for Swan River to put her comments on the record at second reading of Bill 41 ? Agreed? [agreed) Ms. Wowchuk: I want to thank the government members for allowing me this leave to speak on this bill. As all members of this House are well aware, during the time that leave was denied to me to let the bill stand in my name, we were in a difficult flooding situation in the Swan River area, and I had to go back to the constituency. So I thank the government members for allowing me to speak on this bill at this time.

The flooding in the Swan River area made many of us think about this bill and whether or not we should be allowing mor e deve lopment, more activity to take

part in the mountains in our area. [interjection] The minister across the way says, it is a big question in our area, and it certainly is. It is one that has to be dealt with and one that the government has to take a position on, on what they are going to do because the activities in the mountains and the use of natural resources in our area is very important. It has been for generations. Although it is a farm ing area, people have sup plem ented their income by harvesting the resources in the area.

When we look at how they are harvested now, I think that we have to think very seriously about how we can continue to reuse the resources to supplement income in the area, but also how we can manage those resources in a sustainable way that they will be there for future gener ations and that we will not see the devastating damage that we saw in this last short time period in our area. Just getting back to the bill, there are two parts to the bill.

The area that is of most concern, I think, when we look at the number of people who are wanting to make presentations, there are a lot of cottage owners who are concerned with the way that this legislation is being brought in. They feel that they have not bee n consulted, and I look forward to hearing what the cottage owners are going to say when they come to the public hearings about the whole area of paying fees. An Honourable Member: Do you sup port their paying fees? Ms.

Wowchuk: Now the member across the way asks whether we su pport the fees, and in all honesty, if the truth be known, when the NDP was in power, there was discussion, and people were looking at how those people who live in parks could start to pay their fair share. I think it is only fair that those people who live within the parks do pay their fair share, but there is obviously a lot of contention out there because many of the park people are feeling that they have not been dealt with fairly with this. An Honourable Member: Nobody wants to pay anything. Ms.

Wowchuk: The member across the way says that these people do not want to pay anything, and I do not think that is true. I think that many of the people who do live in parks do want to pay their fair share. They do not want to be considered tax evaders, but they have to be given an avenue to pay fairly. They have to be consulted, and I think that is one of the contentions here. The comments that I have heard are that there has not been enough consultation on how this was going to be set up. The minister, in his comments, said that there were a lot of public meetings, and, in fact, there were meetings held.

But the question I ask is, why are people feeling that there was not enough consultation, that they did not have the opportunity to have input into how these fees would be collected?

July 19, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5675 Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no doubt that those people who do live in parks and who live there full time should pay for some of the services, but I do not believe that they should-the bill is very evasive on what they will have to pay for, what they will end up paying for. They could, in reality, have to pick up much more costs than they should be picking up. I do not think that the government can set up park s and can then renege on all of its responsibility in those areas and pass all the costs on to the people who cho ose to live ther e permanently.

There are other responsibilities. There are cottagers, people who tent there. There are other uses for the park, and all of that responsibility should not fall on the cottage owners, but I do believe that if people choose to live in the park permanently there should be an avenue for them to pay for their services. I think about education.

If their children are going to school, they should pay their fair share for the educational system. * (1 520) This bill does not allow the funds to go back to the municipalities that pay for those services, that provide those services. [interjection] The minister across the way indicates that he will pass the money back on to the municipalities. Well, I think municipalities would feel much better if there was clearer indication in the legislation that the money was going to go back there to the areas that provide the services. (interjection) Trust me, he says.

The other concern is that there is no avenue for appeal. We do not know how much the taxes are going to be, what responsibilities they are going to have to pick up, how much it is going to cost them , and there is no avenue to appeal the amount of taxes that you have . Now, when you live in a municipality, you can appeal to your municipal body, to your municipal council when you are not in agreement with the taxation system, but where will cottage owners go? What appeal do they have?

What do people who have titled land within the parks now- what avenue will they have to appeal if they feel they are not being taxed fairly or if they are being asked to pick up too much of the cost? So that is one of the issues that has not been addressed, and I am sure that we will hear people making presentations. As I say, many people want to pay their fair share if they choose to make their permanent reside nce. I do not feel that this legislation is addressing that properly, and the municipalities that provide the services will be upset about this legislation as well.

Municipalities have had to pick up many extra costs because of offloading of the actions that this government has taken. Now the gove rnment is going to address a problem that is out there with cottagers living within the parks, but there is no avenue to return this revenue back to local municipalities that are providing the services, and I think that is a real problem. You cannot blame the municipalities and communities for not trusting this government.

After all, they did make the promise with the video lottery terminals that all monies raised from video lottery terminals were going to be reinvested back into the rural commu nities, and we are not seeing that happen. That is why municipalities are concerned with the bill here. So I guess, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do have a concern and municipalities have the concern that the government will just use this as a tax grab to take more revenues out, but not pass the money back on to municipalities that are providing the service.

The concern that cottage owners also have is that they are going to have to pick up whatever costs there could be in the parks. How extensive could that be? Again, I refer back to the region in Swan River where there has been a tremendous amount of damage because of the flooding. Roads have been washed out, some of them washouts within the parks. Does that mean that those people who are cot tage owner s are going to be responsible for all the maintenance in those areas? That is not clear. We will have to wait until we hear the public presentations and their questions.

I am sure the minister can provide those answers and I hope with some satisfaction to address the concerns. In this leg islation it is not being addressed very clearly. I talked to people from the constitu ency, particularly those in the logging industry, and asked them what they felt about this legislation. There are some who have said that they think this is good legislation. One of the main comments that I heard was that this government has to make up their mind what they are doing with logging in the parks. They have to take a position because they are holding us in limbo far too long.

5676 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 19, 1993 The people also feel very strongly, even those people who are in the logging industry-and many people feel that the loggers want to just harvest every area in the parks, want to see more clearly defined the 12 percent set-aside and where the government is going to set it aside. [interjection] The memb er for La c du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik) is asking if they should take all of it aside. The people in the Swan River area, along with the resource people, have done a tremendous amount of work identifying those areas that can be set aside.

It is the loggers that have worked along with it, and they are quite prepared to set many of these-th ey have all been drawn out on maps. I think the government has to take that step, and rather than just pay lip service and pretend that they are committed to sustainable development, take the step. An Ho nourable Membe r: Rosan n, you are walking both sides of that fence. Ms. Wowchuk: The member for Lac du Bonnet says I am walking both sides of the fence. Well, I am quite clear on where I am coming from on this. Ther e has to be mor e of a comm itment to sustainable development.

I believe we have to move away from clear-cutting. Clear-cutting I do not believe is a good practice in the mountainous areas. Madam Deputy Speaker, when we look at the conseque nces of cle ar-cut ting ver sus the consequences of selective cutting, we can see that the benefits to selective cutting are much greater. We have to find a way that we can use the resources and protect them-reuse the resources but also use them in such a sustainable way that they are there for future generations to use, but I do not believe that clear- cutting is a good idea.

After the flood when we had the tremendous amount of water that came off that mountain a couple of weeks ago, the concern was that this water might have come down much more slowly had we not had the amount of clear-cutting that we have in the area. I do not know that this is accurate. I want more information on that. Is there so much clear-cutting going on up there that this has resulted in the water coming off mo re quickly? I do not have the numbers, and I would like the num bers on the percentage of the area that has been clear-cut.

Madam De puty Speaker, I think it is very important that we look at how we use our resources and use them in a sustainable way so there are resources for future generations to use . I do not think this governm ent has ma de a very good comm itment in that area. They have been in government for a long time now and have talked about sustainable development in the last election in particular, but they have not come out clearly on wha t their position is on this sus tainable development. That is not the message that is out there.

Madam Deputy Speaker, the other area I want to touch on as I talk about our resources and how we are going to use these resources is the whole issue of co-management. As we are developing these parks and new guidelines for parks, is there going to be-[interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Swan River has been recognized to complete debate on this bill. Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, I just heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Findlay) say I want to shut everything down in Swan River. Well, what a pile of garbage.

That is a real pile of garbage coming from the Minister of Agriculture. It is just absolutely ridiculous that memb ers across the way would make such comments. I started to talk about an issue that must bother the Minister of Natural Re sources (Mr. Enns), because he went on a rampage, and that being co-management.

This minister has talked, at least paid lip service to doin g something about co-management of resources, but he has done nothing to tal k to the people wh o are very interested. * (1 530) I am talking about the aboriginal people who have tried time and time again to meet with this minister and put in place some kind of plan for co-management of resources in the area, and the minister has done nothing about it. It is not clear at all from this legislation what their plans are with aboriginal land claims or what they are going to do with the management of those resources in that area.

The minister may say land has been set aside in the province, and I congratulate him on that. I am glad that parts of the province have been set aside. He is not listening to what I am saying. I am saying

July 19, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5677 there have been areas identified in the Duck and the Porcupine Mountains that the local people would like to see set aside, but for some reason, the minister does not seem to want to address those concerns. If he would set aside those areas, we would be very close to the 12 percent that is required, but instead, he goes on a rampage and accuses me of wanting to shut down everything in the whole area.

That is a ridiculous comment, and I want to put clearly on the record that I have no desire to shut down logging in our area, but I want to see a plan from this gove rnment on what it is that thei r proposal is. I want to say that in my particular part of the province, many people have supplem ented their farm income by cutting a few carloads of wood in the Duck Mountains, and they have been doing that for years. But certainly those people who were logging over the years have done it in a sustainable way where there are trees there that could be harvested in a few years. It is not clear-cut.

Now, the people in the logging industry tell us that there is no problem with clear-cutting, and that it is a good practice, that there are no drawbacks from it. But cer tainly if we go to fur ther clear -cutti ng, I think that there are problems downstream from it, particularly with runoff and washouts, and that is something that has to be addressed. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not think that this government is-in two areas, we will have to see what is happening in the parks area.

The people in the cottage area certainly are wanting to pay their fair share, but they are not wanting to have to pick up the whole responsibility of the parks' costs, as they seem to feel that this bill seems to indicate that they will have to do. I think that it is a real concern that there is no avenue for appeal for the people who are in the parks areas, who have chosen to-but I think it is unfair for people to say that people who are going into the parks are trying to be tax evaders. I have talked to many of these people and they have indicated that they do want to pay their fair share.

They do not want to pay the excessive amount that this bill may allow them to do. This bill gives the minister the power, and they could end up paying a tremendous amount of money. We are told that there is no ceiling in what they can be charged, and eventually they could end up paying $1 ,000 to $2,000 a year, and there is no guarantee that the monies collected will be spent to protect or maintain the lakes. So those are the concerns. They also have the concern of what costs they will have to pick up if, for example, there were a fire in the parks area.

Does that mean that those cottage owners who are in the area will have to pick up that total cost? The minister is shaking his head. Well, clearly, that message has not been put out properly then, because that is the concern of the cottagers in the area. I think that, again, with the whole area of the set-asides and the whole ar ea of using ou r resources, we must look very closely at doing this sustainably, and the loggers do not want this either. They realize that this is a resource that they want to use in the future. They have no desire, many of them, to just take it all.

They have a sense of the value of that forest. So I do not believe that it is the goal of the loggers, the people who use that resource, just to take everything out at one time, but the guidelines also have to be put in place. I think we have to look very closely, that when they use the resource, it be done in a sustainable way, that there be resources there for future generations and that when we are harvesting in areas of difficult terrain, it be done in such a way that we do not face problems of erosion and quick ru noff of water that causes prob lems fur ther downstream.

Again, I think we have to look at those areas that need to be set aside. If there are particular areas that are vulnerable, areas that have particular conditions on them, then they should be set aside. If other parts of the province have done as much work as the people in the Swan River area, people in the Duck Mountain and Porcupine Mountain have done in identifying these areas, then it should not be hard to set it aside because there are many river streams-o ne in particular I think about is the Bell River that just had all the flooding on the No. 1 0 High way. That has been reque sted to be set aside.

If we would set that area aside, we would protect the flora and fauna and all of the different species that are in the mountains. Those areas could be protected. We would have wildlife habitat. There would be areas-

5678 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 19, 1993 Madam Deputy Sp eaker: The honour able Minister of Natural Resources, on a point of order? Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, just simply whether or not the member would permit a question for clarification. Madam Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable memb er for Swan River permit the honourable Minister of Natural Resources to pose a question? Ms. Wowchuk: Sure, go right ahead. Mr. Enns: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for the honourable memb er for Swan River.

She represents an area where, in fact, these competing demands on our natural resources come together, as does my colleague the Minister of Labour, the mem ber for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik}. * (1 540} I have been liste ning to her attentively this afternoon, and I agree with a great deal of what she says. I believe there are serious concerns about land use in that area as dem onstrated by the flooding, again, that her constituents experienced. I agree there are particular areas that need to be set aside.

But my question to her-1 am trying to listen to her com me nts- does she acknowledge that , however defined, under whatever guidelines, in her point of view, some continued logging should take place in the Duck Mountain Provincial Park, which is in her constituency? Ms. Wowchuk: Madam Deputy Speaker, maybe now I will have a chance to answer a question like I get answers from this gove rnment every time I raise one now, and at some point, I will get to answering it.

If the minister was listening a few minutes ago, I said that people in the area have been logging for many, many years, and if they do it in a sustainable way in the Duck Mountain, it will be there for many, many years , but we have to be careful about clear-cutting because clear-cutting is the one that will-- [interjection] Madam Deputy Speaker, I think we have had this discussion many times. When we have areas that are forest-management areas, I think we can use parks in a way that they can be of dual purpose. You can have dual purposes in the parks.

You can have a park, and we have it in the Duck Mountain, where you can use it for recreational purposes, but you have to do it and have sustainable logging. But, when you have, Madam Deputy Speaker, a mountain that is used for recreational purposes, I think that to use that resource it has to be done in a careful way, that you do not end up cutting right into those areas, the recreational areas.

As I mentioned, the Bell River and the-1 am lost for the name of the two rivers in Duck Mountain right now that have been-{i nterjection] the Roaring River, thank you very mu ch- where there are areas that should be protected, but I bel ieve that-[i nterjection] The minister says they are penciled out, and I am saying that if the minister took action and identified those areas, they would never be logged, they would be protected. People in the area would be muc h happier, and those people who are working in the forest industry would have some clear guidelines from this government.

They can make some plans for their future, but this government is not making any movement on that. That is what I think they have to do. If you look at our area of the province, it has been a long history of logging in that area. If in time we are going to move to no logging in the parks, we cannot cut it off immediately. If you are going to move in that direction, then it has to be done in a slow process to allow people to adjust to another type of activity, another way of earning an income. At least, I do not believe you can say today, no logging in the parks. You talk about having other areas to set aside.

Where are you going to find this other area? If you are going to take away from people this ability to earn an income, what are they going to do? So if the government is going to make those moves, then it has to be done in a way that we have a long-range plan. In the ideal world, certainly, if we could set other areas where these people could go and log and we could take them out of the Duck Mountain and it could all be set aside, that would be the ideal world, but where are we going to go? So perhaps we have to look at establishing parks in other areas and some new parks.

That might be a route to go where we would have new parks and new ar eas that are prese rved , but when we establish those new parks that we establish them well enough ahead and make plans, lay out the plan that there is not going to be any economic activity. This government in this legislation gives the minister a very discretionary power that he might establish another park and if there are some

July 19 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5679 minerals or some other development there, he will have that ability to do that. So the minister has a lot of discretionary power on what he is going to do, what he can do, and that causes uncertainty for ma ny people who are concerned about the environmen t and the resources. So that is a concern that the minister has, the amount of power that he has in this bill. Certainly, if it would be possible to say that we are not going to have logging and they could be just set aside-but we have that. We have that in the Riding Mountain Park.

There are areas that are set aside, so somehow we have to look at ways that we can-pnterjection] Pardon me. [interjection] That is what I said. I said we have areas that are set aside in Duck Mountain. Anyway, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to get back to the area of co-m anagement of these resources, because I think certainly as we look at this Duck Mountain and other areas-and I speak particularly about my constituency, the Porcupine Mountain-that there should be consultation with all groups on how these resources are going to be managed.

I have raised this issue with the minister, and this is not only with the forest there, but the wildlife resources, the fishery stocks in those areas. There are groups of people who feel they have not been consulted. There are groups of people, and I talk about the aboriginal people, who want to talk to this government about co-management of resources. We have heard some lip service, but certainly the gove rnmen t has not taken any action on co-management.

I think that, again, many people would be much happier if this government came out very clear on what they were doing with those other resources as well, the whole issue of harvesting of fish within the mountain and whether certain lakes should be harvested since they are not natural species in those lakes. Many of those questions have been put to the minister, and he has not answered them. He came out to Swan River to a meeting last winter, and he certainly heard how controversial the whole issue was.

Certainly the people from the area are waiting for some guidance from this minister, waiting for him to take a position on some of these issues of management of resources. We have not heard the minister take a position on these, and that is a disappointment in that sense. I think that that is his responsibility as the minister, and he should be taking action on them. Madam Depu ty Speaker, I look forward to hearing the public presentations. I know that there are many cottagers, as I say, who are not happy with what responsibilities they are being asked to pick up wi th this legi slation.

I know that municipalities have raised some concern because the government is attempting to collect taxes here, but the municipalities are responsible for providing services. I look forward to explanations on how that is going to be dealt with because I think that, if the municipalities provide the services, then they should have some input. (Mr. Speaker in the Chair) Also, I look forwar d to hearing from the government and presenters about how they feel about this whole process of not having the right to appeal, not being able to appeal what is put on them.

Perhaps when we get to the committee we might hear some sort of amendments in that area. Mr. Speaker, in the area of logging in the parks and the whole area of sustainable development, I do not believe this government has done very well in that area. We look forward to hearing what those people in the logging industry are saying about this.

I would hope that particularly in the Swan River area the government would take the necessary steps to pr otect the area s tha t have been designated by the local people, areas that will help us meet our 12 percent set aside in that area and give some clear guidelines as to what direction they are going to take, so that people can plan their future. Particularly, as I say, there are loggers in the area who hav