MG-8048 Fourth Session • Thirty-Fi fth 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. 10 0 • 1:3 0 p.m., TUESD AY, JULY 13,1 993 ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LEGIS LATIVE: ASSEM BLY Thirty-Fi fth Legislature Members , Const ituencies and Political Aff iliatio n NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETI, Becky CARST AIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave CUMM INGS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, Louise DERK ACH, Leonard, Hon. DEW AR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRIEDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCH ARME, Gerry, Hon. EDW ARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERN ST, Jim , Hon. EVANS ,C iif EVANS, Leonar d S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FIN DLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GIL LESHAM MER, Haro ld, Hon. GRAY, Avis HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOU REUX, Kevin LATH LIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayt on, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McAL PINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. ORCHAR D, 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 WOWCHUK, Rosann Vacant Vacant Vacant CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Hei9ht s Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose' Seine River Roblin- Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur- Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlak e Brandon E:ast Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Crescent1Arood Gimli Point DouHias Inkster The Pas St. Norbert Elmw ood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Greek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Pembina Portage Ia Prairie Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield P;:;trk 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

5482 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA Tuesday, July 13, 19 93 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Mr. Jim Malo way (El mwoo d): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jaik Josephson, Janis Bermel, Don Sul livan and others requesting the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) consider restoring funding of the Student Social Allowances Program. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member (Mr. Plohman). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules.

Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed) Mr.

Clerk (William Remnant): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WH ERE AS Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the cou ntry; and WHERE AS 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 treatm ent health care programs such as the Chil dren 's Dental Program; and WHERE AS the Children's Dental Program has been in ef fe ct for 1 7 year s and has been recognized as extremely cost- effective and critical for many families in isolated communities; and WH ERE AS 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 WHER EAS preventative health care is an essential component of health care reform.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisla tive Assem bly of Manit oba 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 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 Manitoba has the highest rate of child poverty in the country; and WHERE AS over 1, 000 you ng adu lts are cur rently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their edu cation through the Student Social Allo wances Program; and WHER EAS Winnipeg already has the highest number of people on welfare in decades; and WH ERE AS the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the City of Winnipeg; and WHERE AS the provincial government is now propo sing to elimin ate the Student Social Allo wances Program; and WHER EAS eli minating 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 lon g-te rm costs for city taxpaye rs.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisla tive 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. Cerilli). It complies with the privileges and the practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? [agreed)

5483 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 Mr.

Clerk: The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth that: WHE REAS Man itoba has the highest rate of ch ild poverty in the coun try; and WH ERE AS over 1 ,000 you ng adul ts are cu rrently attempting to get off welfare and upgrade their educ ation throu gh the Student Social Allowan ces Program; and WHERE AS Winnipeg already has the highest number of people on welfare in decades; and WHE REAS the provincial government has already changed social assistance rules resulting in increased welfare costs for the City of Winnipeg; and WHE REAS the provincial government is now proposing to eli mina te the Student Social Allowan ces Program; and WHERE AS el iminating the Student Socia l 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 taxpaye rs.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legisl ative Assembly of Manit oba may be pleased to request the Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer) to consider restoring funding of the Student Social Allowa nces Program. PRESENTING REP ORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Mrs. Lo uise Dacq uay (C ha irp erso n of Co mmittees): Mr. Speaker, the Commit tee of Supply has adopted certain resolutions, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye (Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the comm ittee be received.

Motion agreed to. *** Mr. Bob Rose (Ch airp erso n of the Standing Co mmittee on Law Amendments): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the Seventh Report of the Committee on Law Amendments. Mr. Clerk (William Remna nt): Your Standing Comm ittee on Law Amendm ents presents the follo wing as its Seventh Report. Your com mittee met on Wednesday, July 7, 19 93, at 7 p.m. and Friday, July 9, 19 93, at 1 :30 p.m. in Room 255 of the Leg islative Building to consider bills referred.

Your committ ee heard representation on bills as follows: Bill 29-The Minors Intoxicating Substances Con trol Act; Loi su r le controle des su bstances intoxicantes et les mineurs Peter Sim - Manitoba Association for Rights and Liberties Barry Hammond - Private Citizen Debie Spence - Norquay Parent Council Wayne Helgason - Private Citizen E:ill Rumley - Private Citizen Jack Eyer - Pri vate Citizen J,ohn Rodgers - Main Street Project James Boyd - Pritchard Drop- In Centre Tim Henderson - Private Citizen Donna Glover- Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg Inc.

Wri11en Submissions: la.n Goldsti ne - Manitoba Medical Association William W. Draper - Winnipeg Chamber of Commer ce Your comm ittee has considered: Bill 29- The Minors Intoxicating Substances Control Act;

Loi sur le controle des su bstances intoxicantes et les mineurs and has agreed to report the sam e with the follo wing amendment: MOTic:>N: THAT su bsection 7(2) be amended by adding ·, ot her than a term of imprisonmen t" af ter "determine". All of which is respect fully subm itted. Mr. RC>se: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the honour able member for St. Norber t (Mr. Laurendeau ), that the report of the comm ittee be receivE�d. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the att1mtion of honourable members to the gallery,

July 13, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5484 where we have with us this afte rnoon from the Adult English Secondary Language Centre 45 students under the direction of Ms. Gail Ross and Ms. Dolores Kimak. This school is located in the constitu ency of the honour able member for Burrows (Mr. Martinda le). On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. * (1 335) ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Provincial Parks Endanger ed Spaces Polle y Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Op position): Mr.

Speaker, in August of 19 90, the Premier promised to enact the endangered spaces promise of 12 per cent as propos ed by the Brun dtland Comm ission and accepted by the United Nations. The Premier made that promise in the tall grass prairie of Manitoba during the election campaign, and we awaited the new parks policy and the new parks leg islation with some anticipation to see the strat egy that would be developed by the provincial government in regard to the promise made by the Premier.

I would like to ask the Premier: How is the promise of the 12 percent endanger ed spaces incorporated in government policy, given the vagueness of the policies in the parks act before this Chamber today ? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I am not sure the question is in order given that this is a matter that will be called for debate today .

I appreciate the member's concern, a concern he did not have when he was in office, of course, because we are operating under a parks act that does allo w for mu ltipu rpose use of parklands throu ghout Manit oba and that was nev e r addressed by the New Democrats in office. Yes, we are com mitted to achiev e that 12 percent, and, yes, we have made commitments and announcemen ts made earlier this year by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns) that will contribute toward that achievement of 12 percent, and, yes, it is our underst anding that under the new parks act, those areas that are designated for very restrictive us e will cont ribute toward that 12 percent, and we will indeed be able to achieve that target. Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the policy, as articu lated in the act, is to allo w the minister to make those designations. Mr.

Speaker, provinces are coming forward with specific comm itments, specific areas and specific designations to achieve the 12 percent promise, something that is not contained within the parks act or in any other specific document that has been tabled in this Chamber to achieve the Premier's promise. Mr. Speaker, Manitoba now is in last place for lands pres erved pu rsu ant to the Brun dtland Commis sion report and the endan gered spaces, at 1. 6 percent. Our reserved lands are much bette r, but reserved lands is talk and preserved land is acti on.

I would like to ask the Premier: When is he going to table the specific reserved lands and preserved lands, which really will achiev e the 12 percent promise that he made to the people of Manitoba, that promise which we do not see containe d anywhere in the parks act? Mr. Fllmon: We are committed, Mr. Speaker. I repeat, we will atta in that target. Mr. Doer : Mr. Speaker, in the

preamble of the act, the government speaks to its policy of preserving space s, but in the act itself, there is no such designation. B.C. just announced on June 15 how they would get from 8 percent to 12 percent. Many other provinces are announcing it. New Brunswick has not. Other provinces have not. When will the Premier give us the promise of the 12 percent and the specific action plan to get there?-beca use, Mr. Speaker, surely, with

an act that allo ws jus t the minister to desig nate in a whimsical way all kinds of different designa tions at all kinds of different times, we need the specific promise to be fulfilled at the 12 percent the Premier promised, so we will know what is set aside as endanger ed spaces and what, in fact, over and above that will be used for mul tiple use, of the resources of Manitoba. , * (1 340) Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, the only people who trea ted this in a whim sical way wer e New Democrats who, when in office, took the logging out of one park and put it into another. That was their idea of protecting these lands.

They are the same people who allowed for mineral extra ction, who allowed for petroleum extrac tion, who allowed for

5485 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 all sorts of things in their parks and now are saying that, all of a sudden, they are born again and they are somehow going to do things differently. We need no advice from New Democrats who ranked 1 0 out of 1 0 in terms of the provinces for protection of the environment. That is not the kind of advice we are looking for. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are comm itted to achieving that 12 percent, and we will achieve that 12 percent with the policies we are implementing. Ostomy Program User Fees Mr. Doug Mart indale (Burrows): Mr.

Speaker, all user s of ost omy sup plies in Man itoba have received a letter, I presu me authorized by the Minister of Health, requiring a client contribution of 50 percent of the cost, up to $300, plus the goods and services tax. Unfortu nate ly, the Minister of Health does not have the honesty to call it a user fee or a tax. He uses a euphemism and calls it a client contribution. I would like to ask the Minister of Health why he sent out this lette r signed by his assistant deput y minister which is causing such confusion and anger amongs t users of ostom y supplies, and why is h&- Mr. Sp eaker : Order, please.

The honourable member has alrea dy put his question. Hon. Dona l d Orchard (M in ister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the change in policy where we are asking the users of the ost omy program to contribute up to 50 percent of costs maximizing $600-in other words, up to a maximum of $300 per year on a 50-50 cost -sharing basis-was part of the budget and sub sequent announcement on April?. It was the su bject of a number of questions in the House in April, May and June.

It was the subject of que sti ons in Esti ma t es, and because its implementation date was July 1, the clien ts were so informed of that change in policy. No one, and I in particular have not atte mpted in any way, shape or form to avoid the issue of bringing in this new charge to the consumers of ost omy supplies, which brings us in line with most other provinces in Canada in terms of the contribution users make toward their osto my supply and maintains the central focus of the economic purchasing power of the Province of Manitoba to maintain and contain the costs of the program to Manitobans. Mr.

Marti ndale: Unfortunately, the minister does not know why he is creating confusion. Could the minister tell us why this letter was sent out to social assistance recipients, since we have been told by the Minister of Family Services' (Mr. Gillesham mer) staff and people in his department that they do not have to pay? Wlhy did the Minister of Health send this letter out to all users, and why did he send them out to social assi�;tance recipients if they do not have to pay? Mr. Orchard: Mr.

Speaker, I will take that question as notice, but I suspect that on the list of ostomates in Manitoba, there is not an annota tion beside it­ welf <ue recipient, nonwelfare recipient. Hence all members of the program were sent. If my honourable friend is suggesting we so label Man itobans in all records of government, I will take that under advice, but I will choose to ignore that advic:e, Sir. Mr. Marti ndale: I would like to ask the Minister of Health or the Minister of Fam ily Services (Mr.

Gillesham mer) if they would consult with each other and organize themselves and send out a letter to correct this situation, so people have accu rate information? Since the Minister of Family Services seems to know what he is doing and the Ministe r of Health does not, will he send out a letter and correct the situation and end the confusion? Mr. C,r chard: Mr. Speaker, there is no confusion other than the fact the New Democrats appear to be saying that all people on social assistance ought to be :so noted and so labelled throughout the entire provision of government services.

That is a new policy proposal and probably the only policy sugge stion we have rece ived this session from New Democrats, but I do not think it appr <>priate that we label for all government programs welfare recipients, as suggested by the member for Burrows. * (1 345) Provincial Parks Logging Activity Mr. Paul Edwards {Leader of the Seco nd Op pos ition): Mr. Sp eaker, la st night in the Estim ates for the Depa rtm en t of Natural

July 13, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5486 Resources, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) revealed that 3 percent of available forests in Manitoba are within provincial park boundaries. He also indicated that 6 percent of the logging in the province occurs within those park boundaries. My question, Mr. Speaker, for the Premier: Why are provincial parks being used for logging at the rate of two times the provincial average? Hon. Gary Fllmon (Premier): Mr.

Speaker, what the member has to appreciate is that logging rights wer e awarded before the est ablishment of provincial parks in man y case s. So that is an historic anomaly that takes place. The ques tion was whether or no t the pa rk boundaries should be drawn to avoid those logging allocations that were made historically, or whether or not, because of t he geographic nature of the area, they should all be include d because they represented that kind of geographic area that was intended to be in provincial parks. Mr.

Speaker, the member opposite will be able to have that kind of situation addressed by the new parks act , which allo ws for the designa tion of areas for particular uses, and he will have an opportunity to argue or debate whether or not the proper designation is given under the new act, but I repeat for him, historically those logging and timber rights were all ocated before the parks boundaries were established in many cases. Mr. Edwards: Mr.

Speaker, in fact, in the new parks act the minister and this Premier are seeking to enshrine lo ggin g within provincia l par ks boundaries as a matter of law in this province. It is already, and this minister is trying to conti nue that tradition. The Province of Manitoba owns and controls 90 percent of the available forests in this province, Mr. Speaker. They own and control the forestry industry. They can control the forestry industry in this province.

My question for the Premier: Why, given their control over this industry and the fact that logging is occurring at two times the provincial average rate within provincial parks, is this government unwilling to live with the recom mendation of the Clean Environment Commission of February 19 92, which told the province that commercial forestry activity in all provincial parks should be phased out? Mr. Fllmon: Mr.

Speaker, I find it interesting that, as a lawye r, this individual opposite would like to strip away the pre-existing rights the company that operate s in the Pine Falls ar ea has ha d for decades, and with no compe nsation, just simply strip their rights and throw out of work hundreds and hundreds of people in that Pine Falls area. Mr.

Speaker, that is the Liberal view of how this province ought to be operated and developed, and I am sur e the people of Pine Falls will be very interes ted to know that he has absolutely no interest in their continued economic operation and that all he wants to do is throw them out of work and close down an operation that has existed there for more than half a century. Mr. Edwards: The Premier is-1 do not accept any of what he says, and he knows it is true, what I said earlier. Mr. Speaker, the Clean Environment Commis­ sion did not recommend expropriating without compensation.

They recommended phasing out forestry logging in provincial parks. No new licences in provincial parks, that is what they recommended. This government is attempting to enshrine the right to grant licences in provincial parks in the new provincial parks act . Why ar e they unwilling to com mit to the recommendation that this practice of logging at two times the provincial average in provincial parks should be phased out, Mr. Speaker? Mr. Fllmon: Mr. Speaker, we are setting aside by virtue of this act significant tracts of land for perman ent protection-pe rmanen t prote ction .

This act grants no new licences for logging. * (1 350) Year of the Family secretariat Budget Allocation Mr. George Hl ckes (Poin t Douglas): Mr. Speaker, yesterday, along with other members of this Legisla tu re, I received a set of these glossy leaflets and material from the International Ye�r of the Family Sec retariat. The irony of the Minister of Fa mily Services devoting resources to such a secretariat days after he eliminated funding for student social allowa nces, foste r families, MAPO and a host of other organizat ions makes this government look even more hypocritical.

My question for the Minister of Family Services is: How much will this public relations secretariat spend this coming year?

5487 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MANITOBA July 13, 1993 Hon. Harold Glllesh ammer (Minis ter of Family Services): We are very pl eased to join the inte rnational co mmuni ty to celebr ate the International Year of the Fam ily with a very small secretariat. We had a chance to debate this in Estimates, and it is in the budgetary allo ca tion that was debated by many members who spent some 30 hour s during the Estim ates proce ss. The member can easily check that within the budget book. This is an international cele bration of the Year of the Family in 19 94, and I am pleased Manitoba is going to be taking

part in it. Mr. Hlckes: Mr. Speaker, as usual, we never got an answer. We are still waiting nearly three years later for the last MLA project to release their project on drug abuse. Will the minister release the full budget for the program and tell the House how this compares to the provincial support for the International Year of Indigenous Peoples? Mr. Gllle sh ammer: Mr.

Speaker, as I hav e indic ated, this is part of the budget for the De partment of Fam ily Services that we spent many, many hours debating within the Estimates process, and his seatmate there was there for some 30 hour s, and I remember one or two questions on the Year of the Family. The member can easily check the budget Esti mates booklet to get that information. I am disappointed that members of the New Democratic Party are opposed to the Year of the Family. It appears not prepared to participate in the celeb rations of the Year of the Family in 19 94. Mr.

Hlck es : The most positive way this government can su pport families is to reinstate the funding they have cut to families. Mr. Speaker, since the government eliminated funding to the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the MKO, NCI, friendship centres, MAPO and other organizations this year, does this mean there will be further cuts to foster families, daycares and other community services next year to pay for this secretariat? Mr.

Glllesh ammer: The member shows a rather limited understanding of the Department of Family Services, and I would point out to him we have had increases in the Family Services budget far beyond what other departments have received over the last five years. I am very pleased to say that alm ost all areas of our d1:1partment have shown tremendous increases to look after the many services that Family Services is responsible for. I know attem pts have been made to provide information for the NDP caucus, and I do hope you will avail yourself of the opportunity to learn more about the Year of the Family.

Youth Unemployment Rate Reduction Strategy Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Premier regarding our serious unemployment situation in this province. The• recent labour force su rvey shows a very sharp rise in youth unemployment in Manitoba in June compared with June of 19 92. In fact, we went up a ·full 3.7 percentage points, from 13 .8 up to 17 .5. This is the highest in western Canada, the worst unem plo yment situa tion for youth in western Canada, significantly higher than Saskatchewan which was only at 11. 6, 5.9 points lower than Manitoba. In particular, Mr.

Speaker, I note that you n�1 men, young male youth, have a rate of unemployment of 20.7 percent, which is one out five, which is indeed very serious. So my question to the Premier is: How much longer will the youth and students in this province have to wait for this government to recognize the serio iUsness of the problem of youth unemployment? * (1 355) Hon. C3ary Fllmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I find it inter,esting that the member did not come with a question like this during the last six months when we were amongs t the lowest , if not the lowest level of une•mployment for the youth in Canada.

He waits to selectively pick figures that will be as negative as he can possibly make it. Mr. Speaker, if he has any real credibility, if he has any real desire to see jobs created in this provinoe, why does he not speak to his member for Radisson who is trying to kill a thousand jobs in Brandon and western Manitoba by going out and lobbying agai ns t and arguing agai nst the expansion of the Ayerst plant in Brandon? Why does he not tell her to stop sending around petiti e>ns, to stop se nding around le tters to

July 13, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5488 everybody encouraging them to stop the Ayerst expansion in Bran don, if he really has any credibility or desire to see jobs in this province? Point of Order Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisso n): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would ask you to have the Premier clarify his remarks. It is not correct that I sent out petitions on this issue, and I would ask him to remove that remark from the record. Mr. Speaker : Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is clearly a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Leonard Evans : Mr.

Speaker, unfortunately, the youth of Manitoba will find no comfort in this nonanswer we got from the Premier of Manitoba. There is nothing in there for the students or for the youth of this province. Mr. Speaker, will this gov ernmen t consider setti ng up a summit meeting to look at solutions to the qu estion of chr onic unem plo yment in this province? We had 55,0 00 people unemployed in June. That is sign ificantly higher than the levels we achieved in the 19 80s, and even the G-7 leaders have agreed to address the problem of- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question. Mr.

Fllmo n: Mr. Speaker, indeed, this government is doing everything it can to ensure there is a sound clim ate for economic development and investment in job creation in this province, and tomo rrow I will table the material being circula ted by the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) that says: Call Marianne at 945-whateve r-her-num ber-is in the Legislature if you want to join in the opposition to the expansion of the Ayerst laborat ories in Brandon.

I will pla ce it on the table an d sho w wha t hypocrisy exists within this New Democratic Party when there is a potential for a thousand jobs in rural Manit oba and on the farms of Manit oba that is being attempted to be destroyed by the member for Radisson, and this member sits there and accepts it blindly, Mr. Speaker-hypocrisy. Mr. Leonard Eva ns: It is regrettable that the Premier of this province has no solution to youth unem ploymen t in this province, no sol ution whatsoever- thousands of young men and women out of work. Social Assistance Employment Creation Strategy Mr.

Leo nar d Evans (Brando n East ): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplem entary question for the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Erns t). Would the Minister of Urban Affairs advise the House whether any progress has been made in his discussions with the Ci ty of Winnip eg to est ablish an employment program for welfare recipients in the city of Winnipeg? I ask that because Winnipeg's unempl oyment rate at 11. 6 percent in June was the worst in western Canada. Hon. Gary Fllmo n (Premier): In response to the

preamble of the member for Brandon East, I can tell him he lacks the courage to be able to talk to the rest of his caucus who are antide velo pment , anti-investment and anti-indu stry in this province. That is what will kill jobs more quickly than anything else in the history of this province. That is what the New Democrats stand for, and he has no credibility asking a question about job creation in this province. Point of Order Mr.

Leonard Eva ns : On a point of order, on behalf of welfare recipients and the unemployed in the city of Winnipeg, I asked a specific question to the Minister of Urban Affa irs, and I think those people deserve an answer from the minister. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. * (1 400) Midwifery Obstetrics Committee Mandate Ms. Avis Gray (Cresce ntwoo d): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health made it clear there are two criteria that were important to him regarding· the implementa tion of midwifery services.

One criteria was that midwifery, as a birthing choice, would not be an add-on cost to the health care syste m. Now we are also awai ting Dr. Manning's obstetrical report which is independent of any discussion about midwifery. Can the min ister te ll this House why the comm ittee he set up to study obstetrical services

5489 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 would not include as par t of its man date a discussion of midwifery services? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speaker, the issue of midwifery has been before government and before independent study with advice from prof es sional grou ps prior to the est ablishment of the obstetrics comm ittee chaired by Dr. Manning that is mandated to give us advice on the conf iguration of hospital-based obstetrical care. Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing in the mandate of either commit tee which precludes midwifery, which precludes changes to the del ivery of obstetric services in the city of Winnipeg. It is an entirely open question, Sir, and we are seeking advice on both issues with solut ions hopefully to emanate which will make sense to the women of Manitoba. Polley Co-ordination Ms. Avis Gray (Crescentwood): Mr.

Speaker, with a supplem entary question to the minister: Can he then te ll us, with the two independent comm ittees that ar e now fu nctio ning, wha t mechanism is in place to ensure that recommen­ dations from the obstetr ical report and recommen­ dations that are now being worked on by the midwifery implementa tion comm ittee, that there will be a co-ordination of those and we will see some real reform in health care? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, I can simply give my honourable friend the assurance that there will be real reform in obstetrics by giving her my commitment, as I have over the last five years, to making change to the health care system which will positively benefit the recipien ts of needed care in the province of Manitoba. Obst etrics, midwifery and the abil ity to offer choice to the women of Manitoba in terms of their birthing options is yet an other reform this gove rnment will progressi vely bring befor e Manitobans. Polley Implementation Ms. Avis Gray (Crescent wood): Mr.

Speaker, with a supplem entary question to the Minister of Health : Can the minister today give us a time frame as to when we might see some concr ete recommendations from the obstetrical comm ittee and some legisla tion and a plan as to how midwifery services will be inco rporated into part of a co mmunity-based health care syste m? Could he prE1sent a time frame? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaf(er, it would be my expec tation that over the summer mo nths, the final reports from the respective comm ittees will be received, reviewed and re•commendations acceptable to the women of Manitoba made therefrom.

Shcould that process lead to, for instance, the passage of midwifery legislation, I would simply put the call today to my honourable friend the member from the Liber al Party, and, of cou rse , my honou rable friends from the New Dem ocrats , to give speedy passage to any leg islation that might flow from midwifery, in particular, at the next sitting of this: Legislature because, obviously, I would su spect it is a lit tle too la te , even if we had legisla tion drafted to present and pass same on midwifery in this session. Midwifery Legislation Ms. Judy Wasylyc la-Lels (St. Johns) : Mr.

Speak·er, we heard exactly the same words from the Minister of Health over a year ago on April 28, 19 92, when he said : I would hope tha t my honourable friend will encourage members of the opposition to ensur e speedy passage once the workin!g group has reported. Mr. Speaker, the minister has had on his desk the report of the Working Group on Midwifery for over s1ix months now. I think he has had ample time tc• come forward with recommenda tions and legislation. So I would like to ask the Minister of Health today: Since we are all willing to co-operate , where is the IE�gislation on midwifery?

Hon. [)onald Orchard (Minister of Health) : Mr. Speak•�r. I indicated in an answer to a previous questic•n, prior to my honourable friend's question, it would be the antici pation that the next session would �;ee the presentation of that legislation. Working Group on Midwifery Report Tabling Request Ms. JIUdy Wasylycl a- Lels (St. Johns): Mr. SpeaktH, could I ask the minister, quite simply, since he has had this report for over six months, a

July 13, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5490 report that fol lowed an Advisory Network report on midwifery and the Advisory Council on the Status of Women's Report on Midwifery, if he would table in the House today a copy of the working group's report on midwifery? Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the session is over, because ther e are time cons tra ints that do not ma ke meetings with women's groups easy to schedu le, it is my intention to hold a meeting with women' s groups and to share an up-to-dat e-although I will not have received the final report of Dr.

Manning, but to share with women's groups an up-t o-date review of midwifery and other obstetrical issues. That meeting is in the process of being arranged, and the women's groups that are interested are quite anxious to have that meeting. The simple answer is, legislation is not drafted because there has not been a decision as to what the legislation ought to incorporate.

With advice from women's groups in Manitoba, I expect to settle some issues that have come up during the consu ltation process so we can proceed with legisla tion next session that will receive quick passage and be appr opria te for Ma nitoba circums tances. Ms. Wasylyc la-Lels: My question, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Health is, what has this minister got to hide?

Why is he not willing to table this final report from the Working Group on Midwifery, so we can all see what this group is recommending and so the women of Mani toba can ha ve some confidence that this government is taking their concerns about midwifery seriously? Mr. Orchard : Mr. Speake r, I am no t hiding anything except my frustration with the silliness of the questions from time to time. My honourable friend will have her opportunity to review the report when I table it.

I just hope my honourable friend has some comments, contrary to other reports that have been tabled for her and, all of a sudden, when she has the report, there is abject silence from same person. Natural Gas-Rural Service Report Release Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake): Mr. Speaker, a year ago, the In terl ake Development Corporation lau nched a major initiative to bring natural gas to the Interlake region. At the time, the Minister of Indus try (Mr. Stefanson) promised that the province would announce a policy to assist in the del ivery of natural gas service that fa ll. A year later, we are st ill waiting.

When will the go vernmen t rele ase the long- awaited report and policy on natural gas? Hon. Leonard Derkach (Min ister of Ru ral Development): Mr. Speak er, in the Estimates de bate last evening on Rural Development, I explained to the member for Interlake that it is true we have staff from the Department of Energy and Mines and from my department working on a report for the exte nsion of rural gas services to communities where it is feasible to do that. I met with the Interlak e Development Corporation la st week, Mr. Speak er.

In that meet ing, we discussed the whole issue of the extension of natural gas services to the commu nity of Arborg, where there is a potential industry looking at the possibility of locati ng in that commu nity. Mr. Speaker, we are working aggressively to seek out communities where there is a possibility and where it is affor dable to be able to extend natural gas service to those communities. Mr. Cllf Evans: Mr. Speaker, people in Teulon and in Arborg and the Interlake Develo pment Corpora tion, yes, were informed.

They were also informed that a pipeline from the Stonewall line would not be feasible, and thus in that area, they would not be able to receive natural gas. Why does the minister not simply release the report? When will the report be out? Mr. Derkac h: Mr. Speaker, there is not a specific report on the extension of natural gas to Arborg. As the member knows, Arborg is just one of many commu nities in this province that would like to see the exte nsion of natural gas services to their commu nity. There are alternative ways of providing that service, as well.

Staff from my department and the Department of Energy and Mines, along with the utility, are looking at ways in which we can extend those services in the mos t affo rdable and cost-effective way. *

(1410) VIdeo Lottery Terminal Revenues Mr. Cllf Evans (Interlake) : Mr. Speaker, will this min ister and this gove rnm ent com mit VL T

5491 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 reve nues toward the study and towar d the commitment to bring natural gas into rural areas that will lead to increased exports and jobs in these areas, such as fores t products and processed food ? Hon. Leonar d De rkach (Mini ster of Rural Develop ment): Mr. Speaker, the member across the way should know that in order for us to be able to extend natural gas services to all communities in Manitoba, it would be an extremely expensive way if government were to pay for it all.

There has to be a commitment made by the commu nities that want this service to ensure that people within that com munity are going to hook up to the natural gas se rvice. Additionally, we have to ensure that it is affordable to extend those services to those commu nities. We certainly are not going to be able to do it where it does not make any sense and is not affo rdable at this time. Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Five-Year Plan Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lott eries Foundation.

Can the minister tell us wheth er or not the Manitoba Lott eries Foundation has in place a five-year plan governing lo tteries and their expansion in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Bonnie Mitche lson (Minis ter charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I believe we did deal with this issue when the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation was before com mittee a couple of weeks ago. I indicated at that time that on a regular basis, the Manitoba Lotte ries Foundation does present to government a five-year plan. That plan is updated just like any five-year plan.

The City of Winnipeg's five-year plan is updated on a regular basis. It is up to the Lotte ries Foundation to make the recomme ndati ons. As government accepts or rejects the recommendations and implements new initiatives, those initiatives become pu bli c information through announcement. Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, will the minister table for the members of this House and members of the public the current five-year plan of the Manitoba Lotte ries Foundation? Mrs. Mit chelson: Mr. Speaker, as I ha ve indicat ed, the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation does present a plan to government.

Government, in all instances, does not accept all of the recommenda­ tions that are made by the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation. That is a process that is ongoing. As we accept recommendations and as we look at expansion, those announcemen ts are made, and those announcem ents will be made in due cou rse . That is a process that is internal to government, and government ultima tely has to make the final decision. Ultimately, the people of Manitoba will det ermine whether or not they believe this government is doing the right thing. Introduction of Alcohol Mr.

Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Oppo!>ltlo n): The problem is, Mr. Speaker, the people· of Man itoba have no knowledge of what the plans of the foundation are, and it is owned by the people' of this province. I do not know what the secret is. They have a monopoly on gambling in this province, and I am very concerned that the public does not have access to the five-year plan. Can the minister tell members of this House whethEtr or not that five-year plan includ es plans for the introduction of alcohol into casinos and bingo palaces?

Will the ministe r confirm whether or not that is part of the plan and what this government's intentions are with respect to that expansion of the role of alcohol and gambling in this province? Hon. Elonnle MHchelson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in any plan anywhere that would introduce alcohol into our ga ming faci lities in the provinc e of Manitoba. Dauphin Sign Shop Em ployee Management Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr.

Speaker, the Minist1n of Hi ghways has contributed with his colleag1ues to the economic decline of the Dauphin and Pa.rkland areas with the closing of the Dauphin Sign Shop from the Highways department, which I asked about a couple of weeks ago in this House, and the• minister seemed to indicate he was hopeful that all the employees would simply retire.

July 13 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5492 I want to ask the minister a specific question with regard to the conti nued operation of the sign shop once it has been sold. I want to ask the minister if he is serious about giving the employees a realis tic oppo rtunity to continue the operation of the sign shop in Dauphin and what support and encouragement he has given to assist in the transition to employee management of that sign shop. Hon. Albert Driedger (Minister of Highways and Transpo rta tion): Well, Mr. Speaker, first, some of the

preamble was to tally wrong. I did not indicate to the House that I wished the employees would reti re. The member should go and read the answers I gave at that time. Mr. Speaker, we are in the process of developing a proposal call, an d it has been advertised, I believe, at the present time. We are asking for responses, at which time we will meet again with those people who respond, before we come up with a final proposal cal l, in terms of how we are going to do it so that we can add ress some of those concerns. In the interim, the position still stands.

We have many inquiries that have been made about people who are interested in the sign shop. The answer still stands the same way as I gave it last time, that the employees basically can avail themselves of the Crocus Fund, that my staff are prepared to be able to work with them to see whether they can come forward with a proposal. Whoever is going to be the successful bidder, ultimately the decision will not be mine alone. It will be made by the government of the province at the time we see the proposals come forward. Mr. Plohman: Mr.

Speaker, the Crocus Fund is not even available for them at this particular time. If the minister is indeed serious, why has he not even met with the employees directly to discus s a transition to emplo yee ownership? Why has he insisted on requiring them to post a $1 0,000 bond in order to submit a proposal, as open right now? Why will he not cancel that proposal call and give the empl oyees a first opp ortu nity through discussions at the present time, immediately? Mr. Driedger: Mr. Sp eaker, first of all, the proposal call has not official ly gone out. We have advertised. Responses are com ing in.

We will meet with all the respondents, and at that time, we will develo p a proposal call based on the information of those who have interest in it. That is how we will develop the proposal call which will then go out officially. The issue of the $10,000 bond in the case of the employees, I am going to go back and check with the em ployees exactly how we have established that. Mr. Speaker: The time for Oral Questions has expired. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker : Prior to recog nizing the honourable member for Point Douglas with his commit tee changes, I would like to draw the at tention of honourable members to the gallery to my left, where I see we have Mrs. Charlo tte Oleson, the former ML A for Gladst one. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon. Comm ittee Changes Mr. George Hlckes (Point Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Wel ling ton (Ms. Barrett) , that the composition of the Standing Committ ee on Law Amendments be amended as follows: Broadway (Mr. Santos) for Flin Flon (Mr.

Storie), for July 13 , Tuesday, 7 p.m . Motion agreed to. Mr. Edward Hel wer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Pallister), that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Econ omic Dev elo pment be amended as follows: the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) for the member for Riel (Mr. Ducharme). Motion agreed to. Mr. Speaker: That is all the comm ittee changes? Okay. ORDERS OF THE DAY Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you call the four following bills in this order: 41 , 37, 40 and 44, and I will give further instructions to come.

DE BATE ON SECOND READINGS 811141- The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendmen ts Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

5493 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13 , 19 93 Enns ) , Bill 41 , The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi concernant les par es pro vinciaux et ap por tant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, st anding in the name of the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk). Is there leave that this matter remain sta nding? Some Honourable Members : No. Mr. Speaker: No. Okay, leave is denied. Also stand ing in the name of the honourable member for Flin Ffo n, who has 18 minut es remaining. Mr. Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): Mr.

Speaker, we have a number of speakers lined up on Bill 41 , and I have to say, ex press some reg ret at the government House leader's insistence that the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) not be al lowed to have this bill st anding in her name. I think the government House leader and the government should be aware, to some extent at least, of the circums tances that face the member for Swan River's consti tuency.

The member for Swan River is today in her constituency, in fact, meeting with a number of groups that are affected by the floo d situation, and denying her leave, I think, the government may want to reflect on that at some point. I do not wantto digress too far. I know that the government House leader knows this issue will be raised again. Having said that, I want to continue my remarks on Bill 41 , particularly on the heels of the answers from the First Minister (Mr. Filmo

n) today with respect to the protection of our natural resources. As my Leader pointed out today , the reputation of this government when it comes to setting aside lands to meet our col lectiv e commitment to the preservation of 12 percent of our natural heritage for posterity, leaves this province looking like an abject failure. In terms of progress toward meeting that goal, we have the worst record in the country. The members opposite are ofte n trumpeting a report that was presented by the Wildl ife Foundation some years ago rating the previous government on its performance.

This is a denunc iation of the cu rrent governme nt's comm itment, a 19 90 provincial election commitment, to move towards a set-aside of some 12 percent for natural preserves in the province of Manitoba.

So what we had hoped, and many Manitobans had h()ped, and those who have been involved in this dobate had hoped, is that the bill before us would have done more in terms of providing some information about where the province is going, providing some information about what classes, what areas of the province might be designated initially at least in terms of those set -asides. • (1 420) We had also hoped that the government could have seen its way clear to provide for a format for making those decisions which would have left less discr etion on the part of the government and en cou raged and, in fact , allo wed for greater participation on behalf of Manitobans, on behalf of those with expertise in the area and with a great deal of concern. lnste1ad, Mr.

Speaker, what we have is a bill which, in effect, gives the government and the minister carte blanche in many respects to do as he sees fit. I know this minister cert ainly has been sup portive of the principles enunc iated by the Brundtland Comm ission for set-a side. I know the ministe1r himself may in fact wish to move the government in that direction. The unfortunate fact of the matter, as we indicated in the House today, is that we failed, that there has been no progress to date, or very little progress to date, in meeting our objectives. Mr. Speaker, what are we to make of Bill 41 ?

We are her'e discussing the principle of Bill 41 , and in principle we woul d like to think that this is a measu re tha t is going to take us towar d our objective. I think it is becom ing increasingly clear, and from the First Minister's comme nts today, abundantly clear that the government has no plan. The Department of Natural Resources has no plan. The most obvious intent of Bill 41 is not to do what we all hoped it would do, and what the government and the Premier comm itted to do in 19 90, but quite the reve,rse.

The c1bject of this bill is to give the government, particularly the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), more flexibility when it comes to dealing with commer cial acti vity in parks. For the first time in this Jeui sla tion, there is recogn ition, stated reco gnition, that one of the goals of our provincial park system can be and should be economic development, the use of our resources.

July 13, 1993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 5494 Mr. Speaker, there is use of our resource, and there is use of our resource. We all recognize that there is commer cial activity within park systems already. We had attempted, and the provincial park plans have atte mpted to define what areas are to be used in wha t way, whether intensive, extensive uses, recreational uses, et cetera. The difficulty here is that where the wording of the bill and the inclusion of the new

section which governs economic activity ma ke it more likely that the governmen t is going to receive pressure from co mmun ities and from resou rce us ers, from forestry companie s and mining companies, to expand the exemptions, to allow more and more intrusive kinds of acti vities. So, Mr. Speaker, that is where we have some concern. Clearly, we want to balance the need for economic development in the province, generally, with our desir e to set aside additional natural resource space for protection. Mr.

Speaker, what we do need to do is ensure that there is a balanc e, and that the balance does not simply lie with the government, because as I mentioned last time, the government is under increasing pressure, certainly in times of economic unc ertainty, in times when jobs are disappearing by the hundreds to amend their original plans to do what they otherwise might not have done. (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Acting Speaker, in the Chair) So, Mr. Acting Speaker, I can only reference the situation in my com munity. Since this government was elec ted, we have seen three co mmunities jeopardized.

We have seen thousands of miners lose their jobs, more than a thousand miners in the last few years alon e. We unde rstand that the people in those commun ities, the municipalities, the towns that rely on mining have a despe rate interest in finding new ore and becoming more profitable and cont inuing their viability. That also is a legitimate goal . Wha t we are co nc erned about is tha t the gove rnment seems to have lost the balance. Cert ainly, when the Grass River Provincial Park plan was developed, mining companies expressed conc ern.

Prospectors expressed concern, but there was a recogni tion at that time of the dual interests of the people of Manitoba when it comes to our natural resources. Mr. Acting Speaker, clearly the other area of concern, parti cul arly am ongs t ma ny in the province, is the area of forestry and the use of our forest resources within provincial parks. That is clearly going to be an ongoing debate. In many circums tances, as the Premier (Mr. Film on) pointed out earlier, the use of those resources predates the esta blishment of our park syste m.

In fact, the issue at Pine Falls may in fact be a good example of that kind of a process. What we have to do now is ensure that if we are going to allo w the harvesting of our forests within areas that are currently or are about to be, or should be designated as provincial park areas, that we und erstand wha t we are contributing to. Therein lies another problem, the question of how we are going to as sess when we ele ct commer cial activity take place, the potential for problems that it may crea te.

I do not think the minister, I do not think anybody in the Chamber want s to en courage, allow, facil itate the development of our resources whether it is forestry or mining or qua rrying or any ot her ac tivity, hotelling, whatever, cottage lots subdivision, if we can show the conse que nces are going to be detrimental that we are going to create more and more problems. Mr. Acti ng Speak er, the oth er side of the equation, the other side of this bill, and again it is an interesting amalgam of problems.

We have, on the one hand, a need to establish a consistent park policy, park development plan, a public process, and on the other hand, we have the introduction in this legislation, really what many are going to consider a tax grab. Particu larly, when it comes to permanent residents within provincial parks, the government is giving itself the power to impose a levy in lieu of taxes.

This is not something new, and in fact many of the people, cert ainly in the part of the province that I represent, have expressed a wil lingn ess to contribute to the municipal tax base in the area: The difficulty is that what the province is actually doing is making sur e that the government is the be nefactor of this legisla tion an d no t the municipality. Now the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr .. Enns) may be able to assure me when he closes de bate tha t th at is not the intention of the government. Certainly, if that is the case, then that

5495 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 takes away one of the main objections that I have to this legislation as it now sta nds, because in my comm unity, in Flin Flon, going back to the early 19 80s, this issue was being pursued by the municipal governments themselves. The City of Flin Flon had raised the issue initially as a result of a concern over the erosion of the municipal tax base, as people increasingly moved to lakefront property in subdivisions, in both Crown subd ivisions and in terms of the provincial park, the Bakers Narrows Provincial Park.

So that is another area of concern that the government, in address ing what has been a lon g-st anding issue as far as the municipalities are concerned, obviously has not listened very closely to the municipalities when it developed its solutions. I think that is an irritation that exists across the province. I have spoken to our mayor in the city of Flin Flon about this.

I hav e spoken to a numb er of cou ncil lors who expressed concern over which direction the government may take and whether there is going to be any flexibility on this issue to allow the municipalities to achieve some benefit here and to recoup some of the costs they may have lost as a result of the movement of people into adjacent cottag ing areas. * (1 430) Mr. Acting Speaker, I have already talked at some leng th about the service fee that is going to be imposed. Again, the bottom line is that the legislation as it is written is going to create a lot of unc ertainty among cottagers.

That is going to happen because the government is allo wing itself not only to have full cost recovery, but it is allowing itself to, on an annual basis, impose additional costs based on the experience in a given park district. I had raised the issue of flooding or fire emergencies of one sort or another in a given park district that then could be passed on immediately and directly to the cottagers without any regard to their ability to pay, without any regard to, I guess, their individual financial circumstances.

It certainly is going to leave open, on an annual basis, the question of what the service fee may or may not be. I do not expect that to happen very often. I am quite certain that it will not. There are not that many emergencies in our provincial parks, in our cott aging areas, but it leaves open the possibility that we may have to address that, Mr. Acting Speaker. I arn going to be interested to lis ten to the minister's commen ts in closing debate when we come to that.

I know that a number of other members have concerns that they want to raise in terms of this legisla tion, and I am going to be listening with interest to the literally hundreds of people• who are lining up to speak at committee. I have mentioned that I have received a copy of the lists alr eady, and we are approaching 200 as far as I can see. It is cer t ainly pos sible that we will exceed that unless the minister is able to clarify some C)f the intentions and some of the implications of this bill in second reading. With that, Mr.

Acting Speaker, I want to thank you for the' opportunity of putting my remarks on the record. Mr. Gliry Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Acting Speaker, I would like to speak for a few minutes on Bill 41 . I think it is a very important bill before the Chamber. I was looking forward to readin!1 the bill. I sort of recall some reticence on behalf of the minister, I think, when he was introducing it. I think the word "reluc tant" was used in his �statement about introducing this bill in this House. I wa:s extremely disappointed when I saw The Provinc:ial Parks Act in its det ail.

I know that this is a very difficult issue. Nobody in this House should pretend that this is not a difficult issue to deal with. We seo all around us, we see the challenges that are be•fore us in ter m s of jo bs, resources, endanger ed spac es, endangered species and provincial parks, federal parks, or national parks. That is the case in the United States . These are very diifficult iss ues. You see Bill Clin ton just recentiJr in the middle of controversy in dealing with endang1ered spaces in the United State s, trying to respond to the Brundtland Comm ission Report.

Originally, George Bush would not even commit the United States governmen t to many of the recom mendations that were passed in the United Nations:, and it took a change in administration to commit thems elves to a different course of action and have the United States sign the document at the Rio sustai nable development summit. We see in B.C., daily on our nightly newscasts, some of the challenges dealing with the challenges of land use policies. So nobody in this House in debating this bill is pretending for a moment that these is:sues are simple and they are some kind of

July 13, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA 5496 absolute black and white solutions to very multiple and complex challenges for our land use and our parks. I want to say that at the outset. Mr. Acting Speaker, I recall the 12 percent endangered spaces announcement of the Premier (Mr. Almon). It was made some three years ago. It was an announcement that all of us agreed to. It came from the United Nations report, the Brundtland Comm ission Report, chaired by a very eminent former prime minister of Denmark. This report had a number of challenges. It did not address all challenges.

It did not address , for exam ple, the challenges of chemicals with the ag ricu ltural lan d use , because tha t was too controversial. But there was a tremendous degree of agreement and conse nsus be twe en the developed co u ntri es, the un der develop ed countries, the Third World countries, if you will, on a number of specific steps that must be taken in our world, in our universe, so to speak, to deal with our sp ecific challenges on the environment endangered spaces and endangered species. The form er minister of the environmen t co-chaired with industry the Canadian response; Mr.

Gerard Lecuyer co-chaired the response. I believe the other chair was from Alcan, if I am not mistaken, or Noranda, I cannot exactly remember who it was. But there was an ind ustry an d government representative to provide Canada's response to the Brundtland Report, and that was again forwarded to the United Nations. There was consensus all across this country from business, labour, environment, government, that 12 percent would be the endan gered spaces provision.

That would be th e threshold for setting asid e spaces in different ecosyst ems across our country and across our province that we would preserve from resource extrac tion and development. Mr. Acti ng Speake r, we watched with some interest after the government had received a ma jority how it wo uld implement its various promises and how it would implement the specific promise of 12 per cent. They received a tremendous credit. I remember the articles in one of the newspapers; the Blue Party turns green, that was the lead sentence in the dealing with the Premier's el ection promise.

That was follo wed by an advertising campaign where the Premier was pad dling in a canoe , extolling the virtues of the Conse rvatives on the environment. They probably think that is a very unique idea over there, do they not? They are very proud of this advertising ca mpaign. You can see the joy on their faces on that advertising campaign. You should know, Mr. Ac ting Speaker, where that ad came from. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Stefa nson) would know. He should kno w . He is dealing with the same advertising agency now. It is getting lu crative contracts for tourism from the government.

He would know that this advertising campaign of having a person in a canoe paddling around is not unique to Manitoba. This was not the first time it was done. It was actually the Conservatives in Ontario; they actually were the first ones to use this campaign. I would refer members opposite to a book called Sul tans of Sleaze. It is a book. It is not my title. I am not referring to honourable members opposite.

It is a book called Sultans of Sleaze, and I happen to have a copy of a certain advertising secti on: Public opinion polls conducted by the Ontario government in the 19 80s revealed the people of the province felt strongly about the increasing pollut ion of the Ontario environment as well as the larger ecosyst em. In a move char acteristic of former companies, like oil companies, the government put out a series of ads featuring vignettes of Ontario wilderness areas while an actor is sitting in a canoe add ressing the TV audien ce sayi ng, I am an engineer, and I work all over the world.

Ontario is the cleanest place that I know. An Honourable Member: What do you call him again? Mr. Doer: An engineer. An Honourable Member: Wha t about the sleaze? Mr. Doer: Sul tans of Sleaze is the book. I would refer the member. This is on page 13 2 of the same book. But this strategy in the short term worked and in the long term failed because, Mr.

Acti ng Speaker, people over time judge the government by its actual record, and this stra tegy, even though it was slick and clever at the time, failed the government of Ontario and the Conservatives of Ontario because they saw again directly in fro nt of them the first-hand evidence of environmental degrada tion.

5497 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 We were very opt imistic about the Premier's promise in the 19 90 election. I say that this act, I believe today, before us today, is a betrayal of the Premier's very own promise in the 19 90 election, and, I dare say, that is therefore a betrayal of the mandate that the Progressive Conse rvative Party of Mani toba receiv ed from the people of this province in 19 90. The Premier promised a strategy on the 12 percent, and in the parks bill that is before us today, in the

preamble of the bill, they speak to this promise of Endanger ed Spaces, but they do not have any strate gy whatsoever afte r. The government deals with the ir promise of Endangered Spaces in the

preamble of the bill. It does not deal with it in the operative sections in the bill. "WHERE AS the provincial parks are special places that play an important role .... " * (1 440) An Honourable Member: As provided in the bill and as duly designated by the minister, 80 percent of the 3.5 million acres of our parks will be in the Endange red Spaces Program. Mr. Doer: So the minister says that he or she or whoever that person will be will ensure that that promise will be protect ed. Mr.

Acti ng Speaker, the whole purpose of the Endangered Spaces Program was to set aside a set of ecosyst ems across the province in a specific plan and keep it clear of political decision making from any political party at any particular time. It was to set aside the land in the 12 ecosyst ems in such a way that whimsical decisions could not be made by anyone of any political party that may hold the office of Natural Resources. It is meant to be not a whimsical decision-making policy. It is meant to be a firm commitment beyond partisan politics to the world and to the people of this province. We do not see that.

We do not see this in this bill. We do not see it at all in this bill. It allo ws for parks to be designa ted and redesig nated and counter designa ted. It al lows for things to be changed ad hoc in the bill, and it allows the Minister of Natural Resour ces, ther efore , to have the dele gated responsibil ity that was given by the Premier to the world community. Mr. Acting Speaker, they could have done bette r. We thought after three years that they would have done better.

We thought after three years that they would have a strategy to take us to 19 94, '95, '96, and to the year 2000, which is ul tima tely the promise of the Premier. I would refer the members opposite to the pledge just made recently in British Columbia a year and a half al'ter the government was elec ted.

We are talking on to the sixth year after the group opposite has be,en elected, where they designate how they are go1ing to go from 6 percent to 8 percent, where they are at now, and how they are going to go to 12 percent in specific systems, a protected area strate�lY for B.C., seven new provincial parks, expansion of six existing parks. Mr. Acting Speaker, they are going to designate these parks and set aside these areas, and that is why th1�y are leading the country and achieving the 12 percent reserve spots and preserve spots, which i:s the key word because there is a difference.

As I said today in Question Period, there is a fundamen tal difference between reserving some land, which is talk about doing it, and preserving land, which is action that is consistent with the Premier's promise and, I would hope, consistent with all members in this House. So that is the first part of this act that we are critical of. As I say, just think how much le ss controversy we would have in our province if there was 12 percent set aside in the strate gy in this park today, .and then the multiple use for logging and other activity would be over and above that threshold.

So we take away the legitimate fears of working1 people in some of those situations that feel threatened between the absolute yeses and the absolutte1 noes of this debate. Think. how more secure the people of Pine Falls would be. They have a lot of other challenges with the community takeover and with the whole issue of restruc turing and modernization, environmental licensing, et cetera. They have more work to do with the band that is adjacent to the commu nity that does no't support conti nua tion of an unfair licensing situation, Mr.

Acting Speaker, because they should not be tlhe recipients of pollut ants and recipients of lack of 1:mforcement through negligence on behalf of the p1:1ople. How much easier would it be? It would not be without problems. But if we were to say to the people iin this province who are concerned about having c)ur endangered spaces set aside: Here is the endanger ed spaces strate gy, this is how it is going to work, this is how the 12 ecosyst ems will be

July 13 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5498 impact ed, and here is the other set of parks that will be over and above those 12 percent, here are the other areas that will have multiple use for logging, mining and mineral extrac tion, I would suggest to members opposite that rather than having all this controversy that we see now-and every province is having it-you would have a stra tegy to deal with this challenge. Because it is a challenge. I want to repeat, I do not believe for one moment this is easy to deal with.

When we are dealing with provincial land use we have another consideration besides the parks and jobs and that set-aside policy. We also have the whole issue of aboriginal land use and the whole aboriginal policies of land entitlement. Where is this anticipated in this act? Where is the strate gy to deal with aboriginal land entitlement? Where is the strategy to deal with land en titl ement negotiations with the federal government, which I hope is going on?

Again, I believe the government should have come forward with a parks act, and if it was going to have multiple use, that would be on top of the 12 percent and together with the strate gy dealing with aboriginal land claims across the province. Then we would have a comprehensive land use strat egy. I admit, that is not easy to achieve, but after three years of majority government and moving on to six years of a combination of minority and majority government, Mr.

Acting Speaker-and, you know, allegedly we are leading Canada in this area in terms of the International Sustainable Development centre being located here in Manitoba, surely we can provide the international leadership through the Premier's promise in the Premier's own province where the International Sustainable Development centre is located to achieve the land use policies that are so essential in Manitoba and so lacking in the bill we see before us today calle d The Provincial Parks and Consequential Amendments Act.

The second concern I want to raise is the whole issue of the taxation policy that is contained within the act . I was quite su rprised to see that in the act. I guess if you want everybody agains t you on a bill, that is the way you do it. You do not do anything on the parks side. What you do is provide a taxation on the cottage side and then you can succeed in getting everybody against you. It is maybe a curious strate gy. Maybe nobody will talk about the un employment rate or the education system or the health care syste m. I do not know whether it was deliberate or not.

Well, let us find a way where everybody can be against the bill. I know, says somebody in cabinet, let us pass on that taxat ion policy to the cottage owners. Oh, well, we better not have the money go to the municipalities; it will make sense. Let us just grab it ourselves so we get the municipalities against us. Oh, that is a great idea, we will have everybody against this bill. Oh, what a wonderful idea. We will have people wanting endangered spaces set aside agains t the bill because it does not have it.

You will have cottage owners in the parks that would normally be with the government on multiple use against the bill because of the whimsical taxation policy, and then you have, of course, municipalities that expected some contributions from the provincial government saying, hold it, we provide the services, and we are not going to get the revenue.

Now, if you want to even make it worse, let us not provide any fair market value for asses sment, Jet us not provide any fair market value for services, Jet us not provide any fair market value for how you will assess a person's property or assess fees, and then let us not have any appeal process except to the minister. That is the legisla tion before us. Now, I do not know whether that was why the minister said "reluctantly" when he tabled this bill. I will have to go back to Hansard, because I thought I heard him say "reluctant." If he did not say it, I apologize ahead of time.

But I thought I heard the word "reluctant." I reluc tantly introduce this bill on first reading, I think I heard him say. But, Mr. Acting Speaker, that is why I want to put my apology in. I will never complain-( never explain, I guess, is the minister's-[interjection] Yes. So he is going to fight people on the landing strips, on the beaches, in the forests and in the cottages and, yes, he will, in his Churchillian best, be out there with this bill. * (1 450) But, Mr. Acting Speaker, it is not good policy.

People's contributing in provincial parks to services they receive, particularly educ ation services and municipal services, makes sense. Nobody is going to be popular doing it. But this bill, in the way in which it approaches this with, again, in such an ad hoc, whimsical, ministerial-down approach , is not

5499 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 consistent with, again, good land use policy and not consistent with the parks act that would provide partnership and fairness for those people that are located in those parks. Those people have all made major financial investments, and we should treat people that make major financial investments in the parks the same way we treat people that make major financial investments anywhere else in our society. Those are fam ilies; those are ambit ions; those are livelihoods; those are economic decisions people have made.

We should treat them not as statistics on a briefing note paper or pieces of spreadsheets dealing with legislation. We should treat them with the same kind of respect we would treat any other citizen of this province and allow that to be the guiding light. Mr. Acting Speaker, I can com ment about other areas in this bill for purposes of looking at the public hearings. Again, we are concerned about the 12 percent. We are concerned about concep ts in

Section 8 allowing for additional additions and omissions of park boundaries and the abil ity to change cat egories so dramatical ly. What happens if the next time around we have a Minister of Natural Resources that does not have the great respect for our history, does not have the great respect for canoeing on Seal or Hay River, does not enjoy, perhaps, the wilderness and the rivers the same way the minister opposite does? Wha t if it som ebody who wants to build Disneyland on some of these rivers? I know the Ministe r of High ways (Mr. Driedger ) and the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.

Enns ) have traversed some of these waterways, and I respect that. But it should not depend on the personalities of the people who come and go. It should depend on much more specific areas of designations and not al low omissions, deletions and additions to be done in such an ad hoc way. Tomorrow it could be somebody else. It could be somebody that wants to build some massive project, an aluminum plant on the Hay River. How would the minister feel 20 years from now, if he finally retires, sitti ng in his rocki ng chair, knowing that he had an opportunity to change

an act and preserve in

an act something as beautiful and won derful, but he missed that opportunity? Rivers that he once padd le d will now have aluminum pla nts located on it and have various other developments that distort our beauty and our opportunities. Mr. Acti ng Speaker, the bill has, as I say, a numbe�r of major weaknesses. I do not know why the government brought the bill in.

I mean the real que stion is, after the Clean Env ironmen t Comm ission had reported on Nopiming an d reportt�d on the Man igotagan River syste m, the go vern ment cho se, by ministe rial fiat, to do whatever they felt was necessary in the public interest after all, no tw iths tanding the Clean Environment Comm ission. So what redeeming factor is in this bill? Is it just public relations? Is it back to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) in the canoe, just a public relations campaign? Is it only the perception that we are going to do somet hing?

What in this bill is being proposed that is not there now for the government to propose all kinds of different classificati ons? In fact, the Premier, I think in his answer in questions today , :said, they could do whatever they want now. So thejl can do whatever they want in this bill. What is the difference? The only difference really is that the appearance is that there is a "new" park lands act and the cottage taxation without any conside ration for the mun icipali ties and the co mmunities of this province. Mr. Acting Speaker, we are opposed to this act. We are disappointed in this act.

We recognize the difficult challenges between a "multiple-use users of land" land use policy and the desire to fulfill the 12 percent. We know that jobs can exist with Endan�1er ed Spaces. We know that logging can exist in this province, and we can fulfill our commitment to Endange red Spaces. I me ntion the Ati kaki experienc e , wher e Abitibi-Price reluctantly had to go along with the new cutting licence, but Atikaki was protected. Now th1�re were cutting rights given to Abitibi-Price so that the jobs would be main tai ne d an d -{interjection] Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr.

Praznik) some day will have to look at the promises they have made on the 12 percent because the Premier (Mr. Filmon) has comm itted himself to 12 percent of Endanger ed Spaces, and until he resolve:s his promise and his commitment to the international commu nity, there will always be this controversy going on between co mmunities like

July 13, 1993 LEGISlATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5500 Pine Falls and the rest of the province. I suggest that if we are to-[interjection] Nobody has got a lockup of commitment to jobs in that area anymore than anybody else in this Legislature. We have met with members of Pine Falls and workers in that commu nity, and I think they would be bette r protected-! sug gest to you they would be better protected and the woods resource would be better protected by having a 12 percent set-aside policy as the threshold and having the multiple-use ability of this parks land to be beyond that 12 percent threshold.

That would be consistent -[interjection] Mr. Acting Speaker, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) does not understand the comm itment his Premier (Mr. Filmon) made. The 12 percent is for 12 sepa rate ec osyste ms in the province of Man itoba. It is not to take all the area in the area-[i nterjection] The Minister of Labour is asking questions he should be asking the Premier. It is the Premier's promise of 12 percent.

It is a promise that was agreed to by the other two parties, and we believe that the government must provide the threshold of 12 percent before it can proceed with a parks act that allows for mul tiple use with no designa tion whatso ever. We believe that jobs and endangered spaces are consis tent with sus tainable dev elopmen t. We do no t see su stai nable development in this bill, and we do not see the reason to pass this bill. We see no comfort for jobs, and we see no comfort for the promise that was made on endangered spaces by the Premier.

Thank you very, very much and we look forward to the public presentations and the debate that I am sure will conti nue with many other critics in this Chamber. The Acting Speaker {Mr. Laurendeau): Is the House ready for the question? Mr. Oscar Lath lln (The Pas): Mr. Acting Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to once again be able to rise in this House this afternoon to speak on Bill 41 , The Provincia l Park s and Conseq uen tial Amendments Act. This bill, right at the outset I will say is both flawed and too encompassing. It tries . to cover too many areas all in one swoop.

This bill, as members of this Ass embly will know, had been promised by the minister for alm ost a year now, and this bill was sup posed to be the cur e for all of the trouble spots , that is, to address logging, to address the 12 percent campaign of the Premiers, the wilderness park development, selling of parks and so on. The 12 percent issue, the integrity of provincial parks and the question of fairness to those people who reside casually or have leases or in some cases own land in parks will be our main concern.

We can say again that the bill is not addressing the issues that we think it was intended to address. We will not be supporting it, as our Leader has said. We have quite a few concerns about it. There are some serious defects that the bill has, and we will be seeking amendmen ts as we go along in the debate of this bill. • (1 500) As I say, this bill replaces the fiasco of last year when this same government brought in Bill 21 , I believe it was. For that particular bill last year, who did the government consult with? Who did they consult with before they introduced Bill 21 ?

They consu lted no one, absolutely no one. We asked this minister and his colleagues on a number of occasi ons last year why they did not see the need to consult with people prior to bringing in that particular bill. Well, Mr. Acting Speaker, as usual, no answers were forthc oming, so instead we were subjected to listen to the minister and his colleagues go on and on about Bill 21 , and then, lo and behold, on a Friday morning, the minister quietly withdrew Bill 21 at second reading. I raise this issue because as of last Friday, there were over 17 0 people registered to speak at the public hearing.

People have registered to come and present their views and concerns at the public hearing because, as I said, this bill is flawed. It has a lot of deficiencies in it. A good number of those over 17 0 registrants come from The Pas as well as from Flin Ron. If the minister is indeed sincere when he says-he told me during Estimates of Natural Resources that, and I believe him when he says he values input from people.

He likes to listen to people for their advice and their input, so I am sure he will listen to my advice and request on behalf of the people from The Pas and Flin Flon to have the hearings process be carried out either in The Pas and Ain Flon, but preferably in The Pas, instead of just conducting hearings here in Winnipeg. This would enable the minister to really listen and hear the people, as he

5501 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMB LY OF MAN ITOBA July 13 , 19 93 claims he prefers to do as he goes about performing his work as a ministe r of the Crown. Mr. Acting Speaker, why are there already so many people registered to speak out on this bill? Well, it is very simple, you see, because once again with Bill 41 , this government is targeting cott agers for major tax increases. The issue of fees for services for cottagers and new taxes on private landowners is obviously contenti ous. Landowners may soon be paying $500 a year plus oth er expenses the government does not have to justify. (Mr.

Speaker in the Chair) This bill as it is currently written does not allo w for the democratic process to work in that people are going to be asked to pay for fees, people are going to be asked to pay for taxes , and where will this money go afte r those fees and those taxes are paid, Mr. Speaker? As far as we can tell, the fees and those tax revenues will come directly to the provincial government coffe rs, thereby bypassing a very important democratic process and, of course, I am referring to when you pay taxes you have elec ted people who are held accountable to the commu nity.

In addition to that, when you pay taxes like that, we hav e to hav e some sort of an appeal mechanism. Cur rently, the way the bill is written, there are no provisions for people who reside in a park either as cottagers or as landowners in those parks; there is no vehicle that I can see that would allow them some appeal protection, Mr. Speaker. Not surprisingly, then, cott agers wonder, and rightfully so, just who will protect their interests and why they should trust this government. Certainly, when we look at the track record of this governm ent, there is very little reason to be optimistic or to be trusti ng.

The issue of fees in parks was to be addressed , but, as I said before, the bill was removed at the last minute by the minister after much public outcry . This current bill contains much of the same information that is contained in the original bill that was withdrawn. The cottag ers that I met in The Pas some two weeks ago now and other people that I meet as I travel around are, of course, concerned over the intentions of this minister and his colleagues.

In fact, those who will be able to make it to the hearings- and I think the minister will probably get even more advice if he listens to my suggestion and request that he hold hearings in The Pas and Flin Flc1n as well, because I know those people who will be coming to the hearings will be offering the ministe'r all kinds of options, all kinds of alternatives and some good advice. The question is, of course, whether the minister will actually listen and hear what those people will have t<> say at those hearings.

In fact, municipal governments are also concerned that those funds that will be raised from the fees and the taxation will go directly to the provincial consolidated revenue and that municipalities will not receive their share of the pro,ceeds. This has been a long-standing issue, I know, for our commu nity in The Pas. I think, once and for all, I was kind of hoping that this bill would settle a lot of those i��ues that have been just feste ring when it comes to municipal services and people living in the pari{S. • (1 510 ) Mr.

Speaker, all parks, accor ding to this bill , will be operated on a sustainable basis so that the money put into parks will be recovered through direct fE1es. This issue is of grave concern to a lot of people who own cottages in northern Manitoba, particul;arly in the Flin Flon, The Pas and Thompson areas. It will also be a major problem for cottage owners in other communities, not just those three commu nities that I just mentioned. The intent of the bill, as I said, was to clear up the land usE� policy issue in parks as well as developing a framework for the development of future parks.

This, of course, stems from the Clean Environment Com mission report on the Abitibi logging in Nopiming. There• is nothing in this bill that pertains to the Endange red Spaces 12 percent campaign that was carried on by the First Minister (Mr. Filmon). The governmen t has not lived up to any of those com mitmen ts that were made to that program. There were a lot of expectati ons, I guess, that were left unfu lfilled by this bill and if it passes will continUE! to be left unfulfilled. In fact, Mr.

Speaker, it appears that the promise of the 12 percent protected spaces was simply a photo opportunity for the Premier when he was travellin!� around on the canoe for a television ad. Perhaps; the Premier, as he was paddling down the river on his canoe, was referring to the 12 percent

July 13, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5502 of something else. He certainly was not referring to endangered spaces. Certainly, since the election, the commitment of this government to protecting the environment has been hazy at best. The governmen t is given powers in the bill to ensure land is available for parks through expropriation, but it is unclear what will be done to resolve other issues suc h as aboriginal land claims, as in the Nopiming park area where the Sagkeeng First Nation has claimed an area that is being logged as we are speaking here tod ay.

Unless progress is made on this and other claims, it would be pointless to redefine park boundaries. As well, there was a desire to put the classification and land use category schemes into the act instead of regulations as cu rrently exists, Mr. Speaker. Probably the two most contentious issues that people have in terms of defining what the purpose of provincial parks would be that purpose that deals with the multiuse of parks, incl uding economic development; the other one, of course , is the different cat egories that the minister is proposing to include in the bill, one being the natural regions.

Unfortunate ly, the natural regions do not make a whole lot of sense as far as the environment is concerned because, as you go through the other parts of the bill, subsequent parts of the bill, other clauses will nullify or negate whatever might have been gained by the cat egorization of the different parks. The minister says that this bill reflec ts-not only the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), but we heard the First Minister (Mr.

Filmon) this aft ernoon saying in this House that this Bill 41 reflects the 12 percent campaig n, and he is quite sure that through this bill he is going to att ain or achieve the objective of 12 percent protection. We believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the case. There is no mention, as I said, of the campaign, of the Manitoba government's responsibility to the production of endanger ed spaces, plan ts and animals. The other concern that I have with this particular bill is-as I said, the classification of a certain park is not as important as the land use cat egory which is designa ted.

There is the chance that special interest group s will be able to put en ormous pressure on governments, on the minister, to add or remove areas to parks as the development of certain resources becomes more or less feasi ble. I guess, in coming to a close, I would also say that the enforce ment of this legisla tion will present the go vernment, I am afraid, with enormous difficulties because for the past three years this go vernmen t has been cut ti ng back on the Dep artm ent of Natu ral Resources.

Dur ing Estim ates last night, the Minister of Na tural Resources admitted that his department had been affected quite dramatically by the budget cuts. However, he says, I support the government in its fiscal measures; but, he admitted, I am left with a de partm ent that over the last five years has received $20 million less in this department. So I wonder, with those kinds of cuts to this department, whether the minister can say with any degree of certai nty whether the enforce ment will be able to be carried out in the parks.

It is hard to believe that if areas of parks are to be protected, that st affing will be adequate to ensure those areas are protected , Mr. Speaker. The enforcement aspects of the bill, as I said, are strong, but how will it be carried out when the minister has real ly nobody left in his de partment to enforce this legislation? The other area I wanted to mention was the idea of having public parks. Parks belong to all people, to all citizens of Manitoba, and I guess the question I have is, are parks sup posed to pay for themselves entirely?

Is that why the government wants to phase in a cost recovery syste m for parks, as this bill suggests? * (1 520) We believe that eventually this government is going to be saying to the people of Manitoba that in order for you to enjoy the beauty of the parks, in order for you to be able to go cam ping or go paddl ing down rivers and lakes and so on, and do what it is you do in provincial parks, you are going to have to pay for it every time you want to do that. So, Mr.

Speaker, I want to close there now, and, as I said, I am gratefu l for having been given the opportunity to speak on this bill, and, again, I repeat we have some pretty serious concerns on the bill, and we will be looking to see if we can change some of the areas that are presenting a lot of difficulties for us. Thank you for listening to me.

5503 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 Mr. Doug Mar tindale (Burr ows) : I move, seconded by the member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes) , that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Bill 37- The Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation Amendmen t and Consequential Amendments Act Mr. Speaker: On the proposed motion of the honourable Minister responsible for the Manitoba Public Ins urance Corporation (Mr. Cumm ings), Bill 37, The Manitoba Public Insu rance Corporation Amendment and Consequential Amendments Act; Loi modifiant Ia

Loi sur Ia Societe d' assurance pub li que du Man itoba et app ortant des modifications correlatives a d'autres lois, st anding in the name of the honour able member for Transcona (Mr. Reid). Some Honourable Members: Stand. Mr. Speaker: Stand? Is there leav e that this matte r remain sta nding? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No? Leave is denied. Mr. Leonar d Evans (B randon East) : Mr. Speaker, I rise to su pport the principle of Bill 37, which will bring about a major restructu ring and reorganization of the Manitoba Public Insu rance Corporat ion.

It is a bill that has been a long time in com ing, and although we may have some specific concerns about details of the bill, generally I am rising at this point to state that the New Democratic Party, the official opposition, is in support of the introduction of a no-fault automobile insurance program in the province of Manitoba. As some of you may recal l, this was the major recomm endation of Judge Kopstein when he issued his report in 19 88.

I must say I still cannot believe that the government and the minister have changed their position on it, because every time we raised the issue in the House or in comm ittee, urging the minister and the government to move in this direction, we got a nega tive response-in effect, we are not able to proceed with it or we have too many questions, too many problems, and therefore we will not proceed with the no-fault sc heme.

As a matter of fact, I suppose I could quo te Hansard back to the ministe r, even of last year's legisla tive comm ittee on Public Utilities when we had the review of last year's MPIC annual report. That was in 19 92, and the minister, in so many words, said, you know, over my dead body. He did not use those words particularly, but that was the intent. No way would he introduce a no-fault scheme. However, we are plea sed he has seen the light and has proceeded to introduce Bill 37.

In some ways, we wish we had a little bit more time for this because it would be good to have had mo re public input, although I realiz e Judge Kopste•in did get input from members of the public, but it would have been good to have more public input. I am sure there will be representation made before the comm ittee of the Legislature that will be dealin�1 with this matter in second reading. I think it is important for us to remember the key philos<>phy, if I can use that, outlined in Judge Kopstein's report. This is very important. We are debating a very essential piece of legislation, Mr.

Sp eak er, tha t is go ing to affec t the gener al population of Manitoba. The member for Brandon West (Mr. McCrae) is talking about another item that is •Eissential. Yes, it is, but we have before this Legislature at this time Bill 37. Mr. Speaker, I wanted to touch a bit on Judge Kopstein's philosophy which is the basis really for this particular bill, because what Judge Kopstein did, in effect, was to reject the tort system as a means for settl ing these matters. He says in so many words that the tort syste m is simply not an appropriate method.

As a matter of fact , I could quote from page 92 of his repQrt, where he state s: The tort syste m is no longer an appropriate method of determining who shall be•, and who shall not be, entitled to adequate compen sation for bodily injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. · He rejects the tort system because it operates on a standard that does not recognize a normal human mistak1�. In other words, what Judge Kopste in said , and those others who su pport a no-fault syst em, is that accidents are inevitable, and an accident is just tha t-an accident.

Ordinarily, usually carefu l drivers will often be found at fault becaus•:� they did make a mistake quite innocently: a momEmtarily loss of concentrati on; or something that caused them to not see a particular red light, let us say the sun shining, the setting sun shining in the person's eyes, and accidentally went through a red light; commotion in a car; accidentally turning

July 13, 1993 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 5504 the wrong way on a one-way street and so on. These happen to all of us. All of us have made mistakes in driving our automo bile, even though we are usually very, very carefu l, ordinarily care ful , but nevertheless we do make mistakes.

Under the present syst em, the fact is, though, that if you have made the mistake and, therefore, have been found at fault, in the present scheme we have, you have very, very minimal compen sation, tot ally inadequate compe nsation for the at-fault driver, who is not a criminal type necessarily, who is usually an ordinary Manitoban who has made a mist ake. * (1 530) Judge Kopste in recogni zes that, and I am quoting Judge Kopstein where he says: Accident insu rance which discr iminates between those entitled to adequate compe nsation and those not so entitled on the basis of luck is not insurance ; it is a game of chance with high sta kes.

This is page 90 of position paper No. 2. He stated that the appli ca tion of the concep t of negligence or fault is fundamentally inequitable because, firstly, it can fail to compe nsate at all some who are entirely innocent of negligence. The innocent party is often not compe nsated. That can happen because he or she may happen to, unfortunate ly, be involved in an accident with someone who has no insu rance or who has inadequate insurance and, therefore, simply does not get compens ated at all, or at lea st not to an acceptable level.

Also, he points out that it does not compen sate those ordinarily careful drivers who, through momentary lapses, are negligent. Mr. Sp eaker, I say tha t all parties in this Legislature should have no difficulty in proving the principle of no-fau lt insurance. Overall, it increases prote ction for Man itobans who ha ve serious accidents, including those, as I said, who make a mistake in driving but, because they are at fault, have very minimal protection at present. The tort syste m that we now use is based on the idea that the negligent driver must be penalized some how and mus t pay the co st of injur y.

Nor mally, that cost of injur y is through the third-party public liability insurance

section of the present Autopac policy, but the fact is that the no-fault system that is envisaged in this bill is based on this premise that most accidents are sim ply that , accidents, and that it is futile to penalize the wrongdoers. Now, obviously, there are wrongdoers who break other laws. They may be drinking; they may be under the influence of drugs; or they may have broken provisions of The High way Traffic Act. There are laws to deal with such people. I am not suggesting they are not dealt with with full justice, and I am not sugg esting that for one moment.

In terms of compensation, particularly for loss of income and particularly for the protection of the family, the security of the family, it is simply that the system we have now is not adequate. What I am sa ying, Mr. Speaker, is that because accidents do happen and often just because of a momentary loss of judgment or a momentary loss of conce ntration, that 50 percent of those drivers who are involved in an accident are found at fault.

So half of Manitobans-! am perhaps simplifying here; I am putting aside those accidents where there is shared responsibility-but let us say we are dealing with people who are either at fault or not at fault. Basically, therefore, you are dealing with half of the popula tion of this province , half the popula tion involved in accidents and who are deemed to be at fault and, therefore, are receiving inadequate assistance if injured somehow at the present time. I am talking about bodily injury.

I just want to go on, of course, and then make ob vious obse rvation that we alr ea dy have a no-fault syste m for vehicles. Forgetting about the deductible, which is really a minor amount, we virtually have a no-fault syste m for vehicles. We have a limited no-fault system for bodily injury, but what this bill does is bring forward and improve and enhance the no-fault bodily injury portion of the average Autopac policy. This is what I understand it to do. In doing so, Mr. Speaker, we are making a major change in how we settle these matters.

We are elimin ati ng the tort sy ste m wher e you , unfortuna tely, tend to be very, very involved in very le ngthy procedures, very leng thy liti gati on, and someti mes it takes fou r, five, six years for a settlement. In the meantime, the injured party may be suffering a great deal, or the family may suffe r a great deal. There are horror stories of people who, even though they are innocent and are entitled to compen sati on, do not get that compens ation soon enough; therefore, there is a great deal of suffering

5505 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 on the part of the family. So we have a system now that is very, very tardy in dealing with settl ement, and many years of delay in settle ment. Of course, there is another phenomenon we must mention. For those cases that go to court and even those that do not go to court where legal personnel or the legal profession is involved, it is normal for a 30 percent fee, a continge ncy fee to be levied by the law firm.

In other words, if you were, let us say, awarded $1 00,000, to use a round figur e, by the court for an injury, normally 30 percent of that $1 00,000 would go to the law firm, so that you end up with a net amount of only $70,000. Those are real costs, and I am not arguing whether any specific lawyer is worthy of that or not. I am just saying that is the way the system is, and the fact is, therefore, that it is contributing to the cost of operating an automobile insurance program in this province. So the system I see in this bill will avoid these unpredictabl e, lengthy and expensive delays.

Instead it is going to provide compens ation to anyone injured in a motor vehicle accident. As such, Mr. Speaker, it resembles a social benefit plan. I regard this as an extension of social security for the people of Manitoba. I think it is an important ste p in enhancing social security for the citizens of this province.

I do not know whether the minister realizes this or not, but my underst anding is any Manitoban who is deemed to be a Manitoba citizen will be covered anywhere in North America if he or she is involved in a motor vehicle accident, even as a pedestrian and even if that person does not have Autopac insurance. So you are an ordinary citizen of Manitoba. You have no car, let us say. You have no aut omobile insurance, yet you are somewhere in the United States and you are hit by an autom obile.

Nevertheless, you are covered under this Bill 37, which I think is excellent and is an extension of security, in effect , for our people. Also, Mr. Speaker, I see other elements of this that enhance social security. I say that it extends social security because those individuals who were not able to seek compe nsation through the courts, for wha tever reaso n, will have an automa tic payment made to them . Also, I recognize that people will no longer be able to seek compens ation through the courts for their own particular case, and this is a deficiency of the bill.

In other words, it does not al low for tailor-ma de compe nsation that a court sottlement can do, taking in all the particular circums •tances of a particular accident. What we have here, we are trading that off for a gen eralized improvemen t in compe nsation for people. So while some people will not get what they want, I think it is still wrong to conti nue a system for those who can find someone else at fault and get compe nsated . As I said, we all make mistake's at some time, and if you are found to be at fault, yc1u are out of luck.

Further, if you are at fault and you injure yourself, then certainly you cannot expect to be compe nsated adequately and this is wrong. This is what Judge Kopstein has stated in his repe�rt, and I agree with his observation. So, in effect, what this bill does, this no-fault system that has been set up, it reduces the risk and fits well into the social justice goals I think we all share, where we would want to ensure we have adequ ate social security for the citizens of Manitoba. I look. upon this bill also, Mr.

Speaker, as a ste p in the direction of a universal sickness and accident program simila r to the one they have in New Zealand which is all-e ncompassing and virtually wou ld not require any sepa rate insurance for aut omobiles or would not require a workers compe nsation system or whatever. If you had a un ivers.al sickness and accident program that would be all-encom passing, you would take care of all thes·e individual problems in a more universal way and perhaps a fairer way.

I do note that they have such a syste m, and successfully operating, in New Zealand. • (1 540) Now, I appreciate the fact that the minister and the Man itoba Public Insurance Corporation have studied alternative plans, because alterna tives have bElen proposed by others in the community. There have been proposals of having a threshold type of a system where you still go to court but you eliminate a lot of claims because you put up a threshold. (Madam Deputy Speaker in the Chair) Mads1m Deputy Speaker, that was rejected for a number of reasons. One of the reasons was that the thmshold tends to erode over time.

In other words, 1people may tend to exagge rate their claims or may find that they should be asking more rather than less in order to get above the threshold.

July 13, 1993 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5506 That system has been rejected, for that reason particularly. There may be some other reasons as well. You can have a verbal threshold as well. The problem with the verbal threshold, and Judge Kopstein refers to this in his report, is that it leads to even more litigation than we have at the present, arguing before the courts as to exactly how bad the injury was and whether it was sufficient that there should be consideration for com pensation and so on. That was rejected as well as being unsatisfactory.

There is another system that has been looked at and that is a deductible syst em. It could be either a pure or a noneconomic deduc ti ble. By non­ economic deductible, I am referring to deductibles for pain and suff ering, which is deemed to be of a noneconomic categor y. So my un de rstan ding is that MP IC studied various alternative pla ns and finally recommended this syste m, which was in Bill 37, as being the fairest and most cost- efficient.

I note, by the most cost-eff icient they are also able to provide a greater level of benefits than would have been possible either through a threshold system or a deductible syst em. So that is something that is worthy of note, Madam Deputy Speaker. I want to state , if I have not already, that I appreciate that there can be some drawbacks in a no-fault syst em, and I guess I did mention this earlier, that the no-fault system is designed to accom modate all claim ants as efficie ntly as possi ble, but it is no t geared to individual ci rcu mstances of th e claim ant. Alth ough the

schedule of compen sation established may seem to be fair and general, it will inevitably fail to take into account all of the individual differences in claims. Of cou rse, there is no compen sation in the program for pain and suffering, and many people may be very unhappy about that, but it is very difficult to draw the line in pain and suffering. Either you have compen sation for pain or suffering or you do not. This, of co urse, is where a lot of the litigation comes in, to what extent is the pain real and to what extent is a person suffe ring.

At any rate, I note that there is a proposal put forward by the legal rights network for a no-fault deductible plan, and it has been looked at by various people. What they are proposing is a deducti ble applied only to noneconomic loss . Without going into all of the details and giving you examples, I would simply say, it tends not to be satisfactory because the deductible system tends to erode over time, and you have to conti nually adjust the deductible.

Furthermore, it continues the existing adversarial tort syste m which Judge Kopst ein rejected as being adequ ate for the settlement of Autopac bodily injury claims.

So, Madam Deputy Speaker, just to recapitulate on some of this, the princ iple of the proposal considered by MPIC and the deductible scheme put forward by organizations such as LERN and others who talk about a deductible scheme was rejected because they deemed it would not be equitable to all claimants because some claim ants would have more serious injuries than others and could suffer a greater loss of compe nsation than those with relatively minimum claims. As I said, the level of claims tends to build up to offset the deductible.

Also, it has been observed, and I think in some analysis done by MPIC, this kind of a syste m does not provide the same generous level of compe nsation for the at- fault driver that Bill 37 proposes. Having said that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to make it clear we would like to have more time, rather than less, to discuss it and to involve the maximum amount of public input for sugges tions and recommendations. While we support the principle of the bill, there are elemen ts of the bill we would like to see changed. We want to offer these proposals, offer these amendments, in a p ositive way.

I want to see the bill improved . I want to see the bill approved. I do not want to see it dragged down. I do not want to see it watered down. I want to see it strengthened. [interjection) Yes, I would consider them to be friendly amendme nts, although it depends on yo ur inter preta tion perhaps. It depends on your

interpretation maybe or your underst anding of what may be friendly. Jus t to use one examp le, Ma dam Deputy Speaker, there is a requirement that there be a waiting period for income replacement. I believe the bill says 10 days, a 1 0-day waiting period for income replacement. Frankly, I consider this to be far too long. This should be reduced to a few days. You cou ld even argue it should be reduced to zero, but surely it should not be that long. You should no t have to wait tha t long for some inc ome replacement. There are other amendmen ts we

5507 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA July 13, 1993 would like to propose, as well, that full disclosure be req uired at all sta ges, including the claims adjustment review and appeal. We also wonder whether there should not be some kind of an advocacy system set up similar to that which exists with the Workers Compe nsation Board setup, where you have an advocate program to help claim ants who wish to appeal to the appeal commission.

As the minister has explained, people who are not satisfied with the decision of the adjustor can go to an internal review mechanism, but if they do not like the internal review mechanism's findings, they can then go to an independent appeal body, which I understand is going to be responsible to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Mcintos h). Nevert hele ss, we are concerned that some clients may not be in a position to put forward their appeal to the extent that they should be able to. Therefore, we should give some consideration to an advocacy program .

Th en there is the whole qu es tion of est ablishment of the appeal comm ission. How do you establish an appeal commis sion that is truly independent and is made up of professional people who can use their best judgm ent and use their wisdom to adjudicate on appeals? It is a matter of finding good people, and then the question is, well, how do you find those good people, and how do you go about appointing them? Should they be appointed as recommended in the bill, or should there be some other method?

Another suggestion is perhaps there should be a state ment of purpose or interpretive clause in the bill focusing on the provision of compensation regardless of fault. This was a suggestion made by the Legal Aid Manitoba people, the public interest

section of Legal Aid Man ito ba, and that is something worthy of consideration as well, that the benefit-{i nterjection] Okay, well, so be it, but as I said, these are meant to be positive suggestions. * (1 550) Another one is there should be a clause inserted sta ting that the benefit of the doubt should favour the claimant and not the corporation. You should think about that one for a moment. Another area that is probably more controversial is with regard to appeals. The legislation now limits appeals to the court. It does not state which court.

It does not state whether it is the appeal court or the Queen's Bench court. It just says appeals to court. It is limited to appeals of law only, and I note, Madam Deputy Speaker, that Judge Kopstein, in his report, recommended an appeal procedure both on fact and law. Theref ore, tha t should be considetred as well, that we should allow an appeal to the court.

I would imagine that a lot of these courts would be more involved; if they got into matters of fact, they would likely relate to issues such as whether Autopac's rating of impairment was appropriate within the categories permitted or whether the discontiinuation of disability benefits on a finding of fact that the claim ant had recovered was justified, or the whole question of pre-existing conditions.

You can think back to the Workers Compe nsation system and all the complai nts that I think all of us have received as individual MLAs. [interjection] No, as I understand it, you cannot appeal to the court from h��re. However, this is something that we should c:onsider, and we, therefore, want to put this forward. We are likely to put this forward by way of amendment. Then� was another sugges tion made by Legal Aid Manitoba that we should have an amendment in the bill.

It would be a stat utory requirement for a review by the Public Utilities Board in-1 think, they said three years-three years' time where it would receive representation and do an assessment of how thbs new system was working, how it had been workin�J and what suggestions might be coming forward to improve it, change it in some way or other. That is somet hing, I think, that is quite reasonable, and that is something that perhaps should be put in the bill. I think it does show that the government is quite prepared to review the whole system afte r three years' experience.

I think it could be argued, well, the minister will get a retport every year from MPIC, and I think the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Mrs. Mcintosh) will be getting a report on the appeals commission as well. So perhaps there can be debate here and governments can make changes anytime anyway, I am sure. You do not have to wait for three years. Neve,rtheless, if you knew that you were going to have this major review in three years, it may be good for MPIC and for all of us to know that we will take a serious look at the setup at that period of time.

July 13 , 19 93 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA 5508 There is some concern also about the treatment of senior citizens, whether we should not have amendme nts to accomm odate people who may work past 65. Now, I belie ve there is some misunderstanding on this because I believe you do get compe nsated if you are working beyond 65. let us say you are a physician working at the age of 75, and you had an accident and you are entitled to income replacement within the guidelines.

Then you would get 1 00 percent for the first year, but then it would scale down, I believe, 25 percent a year over a period of three years, which is the case for everyone. So maybe that is not as great a concern as some people first envisaged. There has also been som e exp ression of concern about opportunities for pension building by people who would normally be self-em ployed and you ng ea rners who som ehow or oth er are prevented from being back at their work and are losing on tha t score as well. So we should consider those aspects as well. There is a question about

section 177 about the chair being able to make a decision if there is dis agreem ent. Maybe that is just a matter of inte rpreting the wording, and ma ybe it is a misunderstanding on that. The whole question of clarifying the legislation's intent, perhaps there should be something beefed up in the

preamble. I have given some examples of some types of amen dm ents I think we shou ld be looking at. There are , indeed, many others that could be considered. Madam Deputy Speaker, could you tell me how much time I have left? Madam Dep uty Speaker: The honour able member has seven minutes remaining. Mr. Leonard Evans: I was going to state that-at one point I was going to ask for unlimited time as the designa ted spokesman for the opposition, but I would not tend to go on for many hours. I may go a bit