Manitoba Committee Hansard — 2 June 2009 (Legislative Affairs Committee, Sitting 3, 39th Legislature, 3rd Session)

39-3-la3

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session - Thirty-Ninth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs Chairperson Ms. Erna Braun Constituency of Rossmere Vol. LXI No. 3 - 6 p.m., Tuesday, June 2, 2009 ISSN 1708-668X

MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Ninth Legislature Member Constituency Political Affiliation ALLAN, Nancy, Hon. St. Vital N.D.P. ALTEMEYER, Rob Wolseley N.D.P. ASHTON, Steve, Hon. Thompson N.D.P. BJORNSON, Peter, Hon. Gimli N.D.P. BLADY, Sharon Kirkfield Park N.D.P. BLAIKIE, Bill, Hon. Elmwood N.D.P. BOROTSIK, Rick Brandon West P.C. BRAUN, Erna Rossmere N.D.P. BRICK, Marilyn St. Norbert N.D.P. BRIESE, Stuart Ste. Rose P.C. CALDWELL, Drew Brandon East N.D.P. CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. Kildonan N.D.P. CULLEN, Cliff Turtle Mountain P.C. DERKACH, Leonard Russell P.C. DEWAR, Gregory Selkirk N.D.P. DOER, Gary, Hon.

Concordia N.D.P. DRIEDGER, Myrna Charleswood P.C. DYCK, Peter Pembina P.C. EICHLER, Ralph Lakeside P.C. FAURSCHOU, David Portage la Prairie P.C. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. River Heights Lib. GOERTZEN, Kelvin Steinbach P.C. GRAYDON, Cliff Emerson P.C. HAWRANIK, Gerald Lac du Bonnet P.C. HICKES, George, Hon. Point Douglas N.D.P. HOWARD, Jennifer Fort Rouge N.D.P. IRVIN-ROSS, Kerri, Hon. Fort Garry N.D.P. JENNISSEN, Gerard Flin Flon N.D.P. JHA, Bidhu Radisson N.D.P. KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie St. James N.D.P. LAMOUREUX, Kevin Inkster Lib. LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. La Verendrye N.D.P. MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. St. Johns N.D.P.

MAGUIRE, Larry Arthur-Virden P.C. MARCELINO, Flor Wellington N.D.P. MARTINDALE, Doug Burrows N.D.P. McFADYEN, Hugh Fort Whyte P.C. McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. Lord Roberts N.D.P. MELNICK, Christine, Hon. Riel N.D.P. MITCHELSON, Bonnie River East P.C. NEVAKSHONOFF, Tom Interlake N.D.P. OSWALD, Theresa, Hon. Seine River N.D.P. PEDERSEN, Blaine Carman P.C. REID, Daryl Transcona N.D.P. ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. Rupertsland N.D.P. RONDEAU, Jim, Hon. Assiniboia N.D.P. ROWAT, Leanne Minnedosa P.C. SARAN, Mohinder The Maples N.D.P. SCHULER, Ron Springfield P.C. SELBY, Erin Southdale N.D.P. SELINGER, Greg, Hon. St. Boniface N.D.P.

STEFANSON, Heather Tuxedo P.C. STRUTHERS, Stan, Hon. Dauphin-Roblin N.D.P. SWAN, Andrew, Hon. Minto N.D.P. TAILLIEU, Mavis Morris P.C. WHITEHEAD, Frank The Pas N.D.P. WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. Swan River N.D.P.

29 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS Tuesday, June 2, 2009 TIME – 6 p.m. LOCATION – Winnipeg, Manitoba CHAIRPERSON – Ms. Erna Braun (Rossmere) VICE-CHAIRPERSON – Mr. Tom Nevakshonoff (Interlake) ATTENDANCE – 11 QUORUM – 6 Members of the Committee present: Hon. Ms. Allan, Hon. Messrs. Struthers, Swan Mr. Altemeyer, Ms. Braun, Messrs. Nevakshonoff, Pedersen, Saran, Schuler, Mmes. Stefanson, Taillieu APPEARING: Mr. Kevin Lamoureux, MLA for Inkster Mr. Gerald Hawranik, MLA for Lac du Bonnet WITNESSES: Bill 21–The Labour Mobility Act Mr.

John Doyle, Manitoba Federation of Labour Bill 17–The Workers Compensation Amendment Act Mr. Jim Budde, Private Citizen Mr. Alex Forrest, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg Mr. Gordon Hudson, Private Citizen Ms. Kimberly Buchannon, Private Citizen Bill 3–The Forest Amendment Act Mr. Ward Perchuk, Spruce Products Ltd. Mr. Wade Cable, Louisiana-Pacific Canada Ltd. Mr. Doug Hunt, Tolko Industries Ltd. Mr. Grant Kurian, Grant Kurian Trucking Ltd. Ms. Roberta Kurian, Seer Logging Inc. Mr. Marvin Hovorka, J. Hovorka and Sons Ltd. Mr. Scott Spicer, Rural Municipality of Whitemouth Ms.

Mary Granskou, Canadian Boreal Initiative Ms. Gaile Whelan Enns, Manitoba Wildlands Mr. Andy Pelletier, Rural Municipality of Reynolds Mr. Andrew McCuaig, Tembec Mr. Ron Thiessen, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society Mr. Eric Reder, Wilderness Committee WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: Bill 3–The Forest Amendment Act Matthew Heide, Camp Koinonia Doug Dobrowolski, Association of Manitoba Municipalities MATTERS UNDER CONSIDERATION: Bill 3–The Forest Amendment Act Bill 17–The Workers Compensation Amendment Act Bill 21–The Labour Mobility Act Bill 23–The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act * * * Mr.

Vice-Chairperson: Good evening. Will the Standing Committee on Legislative Affairs please come to order. Before the committee can proceed with the business before it, it must elect a new Chairperson. Are there any nominations for this position? Mr. Rob Altemeyer (Wolseley): Mr. Chair, I'd like to nominate the MLA for Rossmere. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Braun has been nominated. Are there any other nominations? Seeing none, Ms. Braun, will you please take the Chair. Madam Chairperson: Good evening.

This meeting has been called to consider the following bills: Bill No. 13, The Forest Amendment Act; Bill No. 17, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act; Bill 21, The Labour Mobility Act; Bill No. 23, The Buildings and Mobile Homes Amendment Act. Just for clarification: Bill No. 3, Bill No. 17, Bill No. 21, Bill No. 23. We have a number of presenters registered to speak this evening as noted on the list before you. We have a number of additions. On Bill 3, if you would add No. 15, Andrew McCuaig, Tembec; Bill

30 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 No. 21, remove Darlene Dziewit and replace with John Doyle from the Manitoba Federation of Labour. Before we proceed with presentations, we do have a number of other items and points of information to consider. First of all, if there is anyone else in the audience who would like to make a presentation this evening, please register with the staff at the entrance of the room.

Also, for the information of all presenters, while written versions of presentations are not required, if you are going to accompa ny your presentation with written materials, we ask that you provide 20 copies. If you need help with photocopying, please speak with our staff. As well, I would like to inform presenters that, in accordance with our rules, a time limit of 10 minutes has been allotted for presentations with another five minutes allowed for questions for committee members.

Also in accordance with our rules, if a presenter is not in attendance when their name is called, they will be dropped to the bottom of the list. If the presenter is not in attendance when their name is called a second time, they will be removed from the presenters' list. On the topic of determining the order of public presentations, I will note that we do have an out-of- province, as well as out-of-town presenters in attendance, and they are marked with an asterisk on the list. With this consideration in mind, in what order does the committee wish to hear the presentations? Mr.

Altemeyer: Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I'm wondering if, as in with past practice, we would give priority to out-of-town and out-of- province presenters. I also note that we only have one presenter scheduled for Bill 21. Does it make sense to do that one first and finish that piece of legislation off, and then move on to the next one? Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to, to deal with the legislation that has one presenter, and then to deal with out-of-town presenters? Agreed? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Chairperson: Agreed. Thank you. Mr.

Altemeyer: Madam Chair, following the same line of thinking, we, we have a smaller number of presenters for Bill 17. Does the committee wish to, to do that bill second in order tonight? Madam Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to do Bill 17 second this evening? Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Chairperson: Agreed. Thank you. Agreed. We've also received written submissions from the following persons, and distributed to committee members: Matthew Heide and Doug Dobrowolski. Does the committee agree to have these documents appear in the Hansard transcript of this meeting?

Some Honourable Members: Agreed. Madam Chairperson: Agreed. Thank you. I would like to inform all in attendance of some provisions regarding the hour of adjournment and the consideration of our business tonight.

In accordance with a sessional order adopted yesterday in the House, as we currently have less than 20 presenters registered, if this committee has not completed clause-by-clause consideration of these bills by midnight, a number of rules will apply, including: (1) sitting past midnight to hear presentations; (2) if they are not already finished, concluding presentations at 1 a.m.; and (3) interrupting proceedings to conclude clause-by- clause on all bills at 3 a.m. Prior to proceeding with public presentations, I would like to advise members of the public regarding the process for speaking in committee.

These proceedings of our meetings are recorded in order to provide a verbatim transcript. Each time someone wishes to speak, whether it be an MLA or a presenter, I first have to say the person's name. This is the signal for the Hansard recorder to turn the mikes on and off. Thank you for your patience, and we will now proceed with public presentations. Bill 21–The Labour Mobility Act Madam Chairperson: Okay. We will now deal with Bill 21, The Labour Mobility Act, and I will now call on John Doyle, Manitoba Federation of Labour. Do you have any written material to present? Mr.

John Doyle (Manitoba Federation of Labour): Yes, I do.

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 31 Madam Chairperson: Thank you, and just until we've distributed that, we'll commence shortly after. Mr. Doyle, please proceed with your presentation. * (18:10) Mr. Doyle: Thank you. The Manitoba Federation of Labour is concerned that the labour mobility provisions contained in the Agreement on Internal Trade, an agreement that Manitoba is signatory to and which gives rise to Bill 21, The Labour Mobility Act, will undermine the Red Seal standard and its long-term viability.

Implemented in 1958, the Red Seal Program is specifically designed to pr omote and provide greater mobility access across Canada for skilled workers. Under the program, apprentices who meet its high qualification standards are able to obtain a Red Seal endorsement on their certifi cates of qualification and apprenticeship. According to the program 's administrators, the Canadian Council of Directors of Apprenticeship, it encourages standardization of provincial and territorial apprenticeship training and certification programs.

The Red Seal allows qualified tradespersons to practice the trade in any province or territory in Canada where the trade is designated, without having to write further examinations. To date, there are 50 trades in cluded in the Red Seal Program. The HRSDC guide for the implementation of labour mobility, in this case through Bill 21, is quite clear. Recognition should not require a worker qualified in one jurisdiction to undergo additional testing or assessment in another jurisdiction.

The fact that a worker is qualified in one province or territory should be sufficient for a worker to be qualified in any jurisdiction. It's not necessary for occupational standards to be reconciled so long as there is mutual recognition of each other's qualified workers without requiring additional assessments or tests. Taken with Bills 21–Bill 21

section 3(1), which reads: regulatory bodies must comply with the agreement. A regulatory body must ensure that any measure it adopts or maintains respecting the certification of individuals to work in an occupation complies with the obligations of

chapter 7, labour mobility, of the Agreement on Internal Trade. In order to comply with subsection (1), a regulatory body may waive or adapt any requirements for certification that have been established for the occupation, notwithstanding any other act or regulation. And when a regulation that is consistent with the AIT is adopted that is in conflict with existing Manitoba law or regulation, the remedy, contained in

section 7, is equally clear: If a provision of this act or a regulation made under th is act conflicts with a provision of another act that establishes a regulatory body or a regulation made under such

an act, the provision of this act or the regulation under this act prevails to the extent of the conflict. Given the rigorous standard that apprentices must meet to obtain the Red Seal endorsement, why would they bother, since the non-Red Seal versions of their certificate must now be accepted by other jurisdictions. This concept also has implications for the quality of apprenticeship training in general. Not all jurisdictions regulate the same trades in the same way.

Under the AIT harmonization process, it simply means that the provinces that a better quality training regime exists, will have to compare their standards with that delivered in other provinces and figure out a way to arrive at a quality assessment. The HRSDC guide for the implementation of labour mo–mobility puts it this way: Some occupations are only regulated in one province or territory. The occupation may exist in other provinces, but it may not be regulated. In such cases, an agreement to recognize qualifications is not possible, since there is no other regulatory body with whom to enter into agreement.

In these cases, the accommodation mechanisms described previously in step 4,

section 4, become an important consideration. Such mechanisms would be required for practitioners of the occupation who are qualified or experienced but come from provinces where the occupation is not regulated. Occupations can evolve differently across jurisdictions. So there may be duties that are not performed–that are performed in one jurisdiction that are not performed in another. It should be noted that there is no obligation to modify the scope of the practice for an occupation.

Where there are scope-of- practice differences that cannot be reconciled, jurisdictions with the wider scope of practice will need to consider mechanisms to accommodate workers who are qualified in jurisdictions where the scope of practice is narrower. This process is designed to lead to the recognition of qualification certificates issued in all

32 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 provinces and territories outside of Québec, even when they don't have the same high standards. Let me be clear about this. The Manitoba Federation of Labour and the labour movement in general across Canada supports trade agreements and labour mobility practices that raise standards, not lower them. We want them to the part of the race to the top, not to the bottom. These concerns are not unique to Manitoba.

A report called State of Play, Canada's Internal Free Trade Agenda by public interest researcher and lawyer, Steve Shrybman, ch allenges the need for these agreements. In it, he po ints out that there aren't any significant barriers to trade and labour mobility in Canada. He says, in the 15 years of the AIT's existence, there have only been 15 disputes, all of them dealing with agricultural products and supply management issues. He says, of the 15 disputes, there are five dealing with snow crabs.

Pat Dillon, business manager for the provincial building and trades council of Ontario says, Red Seal may not be perfect, but it is an accepted and recognized standard right across the country. Dillon fears the province of Ontario might be trying to move away from it in trying to accommodate labour mobility through legislation similar to Bill 21. He says, there is no doubt in my mind, with what they have put in place, it allows for the lowering of standards, no matter how it is cut, says Dillon.

The really sad part of that is that it hurts health and safety and long-term injuries and deaths will increase in construction in Ontario. In our view, the best way to improve labour mobility within Canada and the free movement of highly skilled work force members is to invest in a public apprenticeship progra m that trains workers to Red Seal standards. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. We have questions. Hon. Andrew Swan (Minis ter of Competitiveness, Training and Trade): Yes, Mr.

Doyle, thank you for coming and presenting tonight and thank you for what you and the Manitoba Federation of Labour do to improve conditions for workers in Manitoba. I'm very pleased that you wanna come and speak about the Red Seal Program. As the minister also responsible for apprenticeship, obviously we want to increase the numbers of young Manitobans who would decide to go into an apprentice trade. We want to make sure there's appropriate safety and appropriate training. I agree with you that the Red Seal standard is the best and, and most recogniz ed system of recognition across Canada. I was pleased that

section 7 of the agreement in internal trade specifically references the Red Seal Program. The

preamble to the, the act that we're dealing with tonight confirms that all parties, every province and territory in the federal government, are continuing to commit to the interprovincial standards Red Seal Program. Now, the best part about the Red Seal Program is that really tradespeople have–and that they really had labour mobility more so than, than professions and regulated occupations across the country.

As I understand it, there's the concern that there may be a small number of jurisdictions that don't necessarily have the same commitment to the Red Seal Program, and there may be some differences in the scope of, of some of the trades.

And, I suppose what I'll put for your interest is that there is the ability, if there is a major difference or a significant difference in the scope of practice for any regulated occupation, to request what's called a legitimate objective to say that the standards of someone coming from another jurisdiction are such that there's a gap–they don't know how to do something which a Manitoba-trained tradesperson, professional, other regulated occupation may be able to do.

So, you, you should be aware that, when Bill 21 passes into law, they will–there will continue to be the ability of any regulated occupation to come forward and say that ther e are concerns about the particular knowledge that a worker coming from another jurisdiction has. There's already been a couple of, of exceptions that have been granted–lawyers, because of the different system of law in Québec; midwives and licensed practical nurses. I guess the question is, is, Mr.

Doyle, are–is the Manitoba Federation of Labour and, and its members prepared to work with us if they believe that there are difficulties with workers certified in any trade from any other province that may not have the skill set that would be needed to, to conduct their work safely in the province of Manitoba?

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 33 And if the answer is yes, I don't think we have a problem. Mr. Doyle: Certainly the answer would be yes. The Manitoba Federation of Labour and its affiliated unions are prepared to, to work with any, any government in any, in any jurisdiction if it's going to result in a better regime governing apprenticeship and training and the quality of journey people that, that emerge at the end of it. * (18:20) I appreciate your words on the, the inclusion of Red Seal and the need to nurture it in the

preamble. And we also recognize that in large part the wording contained in Bill 21 has its roots in the Agreement on Internal Trade and with the kind of guide for implementation that I, that I read in preparing these remarks, I can understand some of the language that exists. Now, notwithstanding the

preamble and it's, it's very useful in some circumstances, but the meat of the matter is the wording in the clauses, the individual lines in the, in the act. And it's those lines that give us concern. It gives any government at any point in the future, the ability to, to accomplish some very, very negative things to the apprenticeship structure. In 2003, the government of British Columbia embarked on a, a process they described as being a, a streamlining and improvement to the apprenticeship training sudy–situation in that province, and, quite frankly, it was, it was, doublespeak. It was exactly the opposite.

It was the splintering of training. It was the deskilling of, of a skilled work force. It was the focussing of, of, for example, carpenters, dividing them up into two groups, qualified carpenters and carpenters that specialize in residential construction, which is roughly analogous to training a hundred doctors and having 25 of them specialize in broken left legs. Now, if you have a broken left leg, that's fine. If you have a heart attack, then you're going to be a little choosy about, you know, who you enlist the aid from. Now, that's not a very valid comparison, I know, and I make it for hyperbole's sake.

But it's not the– well, the consequence of what occurred in B.C. is obvious now. Here it is a scant six years later and they've got some severe skilled labour shortages in that province. Madam Chairperson: I'm sorry to interrupt, but the five minutes for questions has expired. Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): Just ask leave to ask a short question. My

preamble isn't nearly as long as the minister's. Madam Chairperson: Is there leave to allow a question from Mr. Pedersen? An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Chairperson: Leave? Thank you. Mr. Pedersen. Mr. Pedersen: Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the committee for granting leave. Bill 21 is about to be–if it goes through committee and passed into third reading and passed, is your Manitoba Federation of Labour, you've outlined your concerns about Bill 21 in terms of Red Seal.

Is your organization prepared to work with Bill 21, or are you opposed to it, or do you have amendments that you would like to see in it? Mr. Doyle: I didn't come here today with specific amendments, mainly because I'm not exactly sure what it would take to amend the bill properly to meet the kinds of concerns that I've, that I've outlined here today. Yes, we're prepared to work with Bill 21 when it's enacted, as we're prepared to work with all laws until we are able to convince people to amend them at some point down the road.

I can say this, that we wi ll focus all of our efforts on maintaining the integrity of the apprenticeship training system in Manitoba, and, and continuing to put out what I think are some of the most skilled and able journey ticket holders to graduate from apprenticeship training in Canada. Our, our, our skilled workers are in demand everywhere, not only in Canada, but offshore as well. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Bill 17–The Workers Compensation Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: We will now go to Bill 17, The Workers Compensation Amendment Act.

I will now call on Jim Budde, private citizen. Do you have any written materials for the committee? Mr. Jim Budde (Private Citizen): Just what I was going to read out to the people, politicians. Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

34 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 Am I pronouncing your last name correctly? Mr. Budde: It's, it's pronounced Budde. Madam Chairperson: Budde? Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Budde: You'll have to excuse me 'cause I gotta move around a little bit once in a while as a result of my injuries and disabilities, so. But at any rate, I'd like to thank you all for allowing me the time to speak at this committee hearing, moreover been following on my views, opinions, based on my experiences with all involved and particularly the WCB of Manitoba.

And I would like to thank and applaud this government and the minister charged with the WCB act for the positive changes that are long overdue to this bill and for the, the fight that the firefighters' department has put on to get these changes. Bill 17 adds two or more types of cancers to presumption clause for firefighters, but it should also be broadened to other people in other industries, for instance, ab–asbestos. Fr om previous–I, myself, worked with asbestos years and years ago. It should be a broad, broad spectrum to cover everybody, presumptuous clause.

In 2002, Manitoba was the first province to pass a presumption clause, and again, I applaud that. They set precedents, I would assume, and they should continue doing so. These are positive changes and needed changes. The passage of the presumption clause demonstrates that the provincial government recognizes the difficulty of establishing a cause and effect relationship for a wi de variety of workplace injuries, illnesses and disabilities, especially in particular repeated injury cases.

As most, if not all, are well aware, there's a good need for large-scale reform of the WCB act and by talking with a lot of you, I can say that confidently, that there are many politici ans out there that know change has to be done.

Not many people present here today who can deny long-term permanent injured and disabled workers, claimants and their families, are, in my view, most certainly treated unfairly and inhumanely by the current system and agree that positive changes need to be made immediately, keeping in mind that the injured and disabled claimants did not ask for their injuries and resulting disabilities and impairments or to lose their ability to earn a living, a decent living, by way of meanful and gainful employment in order to support not only themselves but their respective families.

This affects a lot of people, it's a, it's a real ripple effect. There is no real recourse; there is an illusion or perceived illusion that there is a fair and just recourse. I myself have been through multiple systems and organizations and it's like they dangle a carrot in front of you and when you go to reach it, they slap you on the nose and pull it away, and this is done repeatedly. There's internal conf licts with the WCB as employer and profit driven .

Therefore, the same board which is responsible for dispension of funds and also responsible for investing money for profit, ensuring the continued existence of the fund–that in itself is a conflict of interest. That should be two positions and one being an independent position outside of the board–the profit making of it, not the handling of the disabilities and what not–that's got to be separated. This is done on the backs–these profits that they're made are predominantly done on the backs of the disabled and permanently injured workers and their families. That's who suffers these losses.

This also denies them the much-needed necessary benefits to wh ich they are rightfully entitled to as a res–direct result of their workplace injuries and resulting disabilities and impairments. And it also affects not only them but their respective families in more ways than one, and this has been shown through the media on the steps of the WCB. Pe–people have, through such despair, taken drastic measures because they didn’t know what else to do, because of that illusionary help that is out there and illusionary–what I call maybe a just system, but not at all.

WCB needs to stop adva–adversarial actions against long-term disability and permanently injured workers, and this was cited in, in the report of February of 2002 by Doug Smith, and another report by the outgoing Judge Robert Kopstein in his annual WCB report of–I think it was 1991, maybe '92. But as you–most of you know, I'm out here, been protesting for over a year and this man, Kopstein, he writes more than I've even thought of, but he's on– I'm on the same track as he is, and this has been going back for years.

In fact, it was in the late '80s that the WCB started changing radically, if people– must remember that. It, it used to be not a bad system. In fact, when it was created in 1917, it was designed to help both the employer and the employee, and now it's seemingly one-sided, or obviously.

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 35 Currently, the limit practice of a presumption in other workplace injuries and disability scenarios, which must be broadened, as I said, to include all injured and disabled claimants, especially when they are substantiated and submitted with medical documentation supporting their claims. You know, when these guys can support their stuff such as I have and the board still ignores it, like, it's mind- boggling to say the least. These things gotta be changed, hence the accountability.

Moreover, the onus of burden of proof lies in the hands of the WCB–I believe this is written in the act–not the injured or disabled claimants to prove their injuries and the resulting disabilities. The WCB must not be allowed to think and say whatever they want in order to cut a claimant off benefits to which they are rightfully entitled to. * (18:30) And furthermore, when, when is enough medical supporting evidence enough? Like, there's just–the board seems to have no end for it and then when you give it to 'em, they just–yeah, so? Our opinion, a clerk's opinion–like, wow. It's–no.

Why is the WCB also allowed to sect–selectively ignore this in itself, and in itself, this is negligence–medical evidence, when they ignore it. This causes further undue mental anguish, harm and hardship for some of these people; also forces them to try and violate the WCB act themselves, which is, in my case, by trying to force me back into a, a position that wasn't even real, was scheduled for deletion, but wanting me to violate the act itself by causing myself further harm by going back to work.

They tried to do that to me and I had no medical clearance of any kind, so this arbitrary and selective treatment of workers, especially long-term and permanently injured claims, the decisions and resulting actions made by the WCB are, in my view, unreasonable, based on the verified and supporting mega–medical evidence on file. I've seen this, not only in my stuff, but with other people I've met by doing what I've done, or what I'm going through.

WCB clerks seemingly have the ability and the authority to override the opinions of both, not only the external, but their own doctors if they don't like what they're saying, medical professionals in their respective fields. Yet these WCB clerks have no medical training, expertise or licence to practice medicine in this province,

whereas the people that write these letters do. It's mind boggling. Yeah, they have the–th ey've gone through the schooling and did the licensing and so on and so forth. So, yeah, it's–that's why doctors them– themselves are frustrated. The medical community and the legal community are both frustrated with the way the board runs. They're boggled with it all. You can't get a lawyer to, to stand up, for two reasons: one, it's just how much money you got and, secondly, the board's got a few of them out there on retainer and so it creates a conflict of interest. It's– what's wrong with that picture?

Discrimination in particular exceeds those people that are not on benefits for more than a 12- week period, and it seems that WCB likes to use the 4-D approach: delay, deny, discredit and, eventually, disentitle, and that seems to be a prime directive. They disregard, like I said, medical–verified medical evidence, detailing and supporting nature and the extent of workplace injury and resulting disabilities. Correspondence with these guys is inconsistent and they don't adhere to the WCB act.

There's contradictions, manipulations, cherry picking of whatever they want, sections of the act or medical, and using them out of context, ignoring collective agreements unless beneficial to the WCB, and/or or otherwise manipulate and misuse the WCB act. Use it only what may work best or suits their own needs or the employer's needs and the like, and ignore or simply refuse to address issues of concern and contention. It's, in my case they just–we're not going to deal with it. We're just not going to deal with it.

Often clerks or upper management will go on tangents, as I say, and refu se to answer issues at hand, they just refuse, and I've had that said to my face. WCB, as I told you, hires lawyers on retainers in firms around the city, which creates conflict of interest. They're always looking for ways to get rid of long-term injury and disability claimants, instead of simply giving 'em what they are rightfully entitled to receive as a result of their workplace injuries, disabilities and impairments. As again said, they never asked for any of these hardships and disabilities. Nobody wants this life.

Difficulties with self-insured entities, as stated by WCB representative, have been told that, yeah, we have more problems with self-insured entities so they make it harder for us to deal with them. Well, wait a minute, you are the board. You're– they're supposed to do what you say and what your

36 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 findings are, and yet you'll change your mind. Well, that's just the way it is. Well, no it isn't. I've had several specialized medical professions who corroborate that I'm permanently disabled. There is a WCB interdepartmental memo dated October 24, 2006, which clearly states that I myself are unemployable. The board themselves have said that, and now they ignore that. However, the city– Madam Chairperson: Mr. Budde, you have one minute. Mr. Budde: Okay, well. Okay, let's go on notes.

In consideration and conclusion, what I'm looking for, for all injured and disabled and the upcoming young ones, is treatment of workers to, like, 1997–1917, to treat 'em with the deal was originally created, why the board was created, to be fair, just and humane. The provincial government must stop ignoring this problem, and I call it the dirty diaper syndrome of the province, and undertake serious and immediate reforms. Incorporate the presumption clause for all wo rkers who can corroborate their claim with verified medical evidence.

The Province must stop ignoring duties and responsibilities of the Workers Compensation Board of Manitoba. They need to improve the WCB act and force 'em to adhere to it, which would improve the lives of many Manitobans. Hold the WCB responsible for its actions and stop it from offloading its responsibilities to other, already-overburdened social safety nets, and they're doing that a lot. Ask–and I ask this government and the minister charged with the WCB act to review at least 30 to 50 cases, including mine as a good example, as I feel it entails several issues that must be addressed and rectified.

I thank you for your time, considerations and patience. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Does the committee have any questions? Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Yes, Mr. Budde, I, I like the way you started your presentation by acknowledging the de–valuable Bill 17 in itself and that it's, it's a bill that's worth supporting. And then you go into what I've witnessed in terms of over the last year, a passionate appeal as to circumstances that go beyond the firefighters in terms of the needs for changing Workers Compensation. And I just wanted to commend you.

I know virtually every time or every so often I see you on the steps of the Legislature, whether it's sunshine, rain, snow, all times of the year, and the manner in which you conduct yourself. And I guess the question that I have for you is, can you give maybe some sort of an indication of–I think committee members need to hear the impact because we're not maybe making the types of changes that you foresee, the type of impact that has on you and your family from a personal point of view. Mr. Budde: I'm lucky. My family has stood behind me, but I know of others with marriage break-ups.

I've not been without problems. We've almost lost our house. We lived quite humbly. When I've seen others much worse, but my socializing is almost nil. My socializing is you guys. I don't deal with people anymore. People don't understand. Empathy is lacking out there unless you experience it, but it's not an easy life, and that's why I'm here to create change. It's got to be done. You got to help people like us. We're not doing this because we want to. This is humiliating. Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, you make reference to other injured workers.

Can you give us a sense in terms of if there is some sort of an overriding theme of other injured workers that you've met on the steps of the Legislature over the last year? Mr. Budde: I'm sorry. I've met hundreds, and as I strongly urge that you guys, the politicians, read Judge Robert Kopstein's report of, I believe the WC annual report 1991-92 December and then again Doug Smith's of February 2002. That pretty well explains what I'm doing. It's, it–when I read these reports it was mind-blowing that this has been going on longer that I thought.

In fact, I came to this Leg, I knew it was deep, and I did not realize the depth of what it was though. It's huge, it's huge. There are thousands of Manitobans out there with these problems. Ask the welfare office. Ask lots of other–you, there's nobody in this province that doesn't know how bad the workmen's compensation board is. Out of every 10 people I meet, nine and a half will tell you, yeah we know, we know, we know. Everybody knows undeniably the problems with workmen's compensation board in this province, everybody. Mrs. Mavis Taillieu (Morris): Thank you very much, Mr. Budde, for comi ng today.

I've certainly seen you on the steps of the Legislature as well, and I know it takes a lot of passion to continue on doing

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 37 that. And I don't really have a question for you, but I certainly liked listening to your presentation and understand the things that you've been going through. So just want to wish you all the best. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Floor Comment: Can I say one more thing? Madam Chairperson: Mr. Budde. Mr. Budde: The reason that I'm here you've made– made a notion to passion. It's because I believe it and I know it to be true. Why would a fraud or a gloom bubby sitting there wasting their time? I believe in what I'm doing and it's got to be done.

And I know most of you do too. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. I will now call on Alex Forrest, United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg. Do you have any written materials for us? Mr. Alex Forrest (United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Forrest: Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an absolute honour for me to speak to you here this evening. I would like to begin by thanking all of you for your work that you're doing here this evening.

Today I will be speaking in favour of the proposed WCB amendment that will add testicular and esophageal cancer to the list of cancers that create a rebuttable presumption for firefighte r occupational disease coverage under the Workers Compensation. * (18:40) The science is clear. Firefighters have an increased risk of occupational testicular and esophageal cancer. I could spend my full 10 minutes here today talking about all the studies that link the occupation of firefighting to that of cancer.

But one thing the studies say conclusively is that firefighters have anywhere from a two to four times greater risk than the general population of getting occupational cancer. Firefighters not only get occupational cancer at a higher rate, but they also get cancer earlier in life. Firefighters give up quantity of life and they give up quality of life for this profession that we love so dearly. What we're asking you to do here this evening is to recognize this fact, this tragic fact of our profession. Carcinogens are in every single fire.

It doesn't matter whether it's a small garbage fire, it doesn't matter whether it's a car fire, a house fire. Every single fire has chemicals such as benzene, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen cyanide. The list goes on and on. Benzene. What happens is that we have the best gear in the world, we literally have. There's, there's, there's no finer firefighter gear and breathing apparatus that Winnipeg has purchased. But, unfortunately, there's no way that we can separate firefighters from coming in contact with these cancer-causing agents.

I have been asked many times, if, since this legislation's been enacted in 2002, if that we now need this with the improvements in our safe–safety equipment. But what's happened is we're seeing that the toxicity level of fires have actually increased 10 to 15 times in the last 10 to 12 years of firefighting, where our safety factor of our protective clothing and breathing apparatus has increas ed only three to four times during that time. So it's actually getting harder and harder for firefighters to deal with these cancers.

And I believe that you're going to see higher rates of cancer in firefighters in the near future. And there's one reason for that and that's plastics. I just finished reading a study about plastic and the inclusion of plastic in our society. Every single year, there's anywhere from 20 to 30 new kinds of plastics that are being introduced on the market every single year. Everything in your house, from furniture to appliances, is now becoming plasticized in some way. And, and th ere's no greater example of that than in houses them selves.

What we're seeing, especially in the last 10 years, that house fires have become a toxic soup of cancer-causing fumes as we move from wood-based construction to a more composite construction held together by glues and plastics. And one thing that's imp–important to understand is its not only the inhaling these toxic fumes that are killing firefighters. What it is, is that these cancer-causing agents are being absorbed into our body, because there's no way that we can create a firefighting gear that allows it to breath within a fire but it also lets the cancer-causing agents into your gear.

I've been a firefighter for 20 years. I'm a current– currently an active firefighter. I'm stationed at Station 26, and we see a lot of the newer house

38 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 construction fires out there. And one of the things that you see is that when you fight a fire in that area, you come back, and you decontaminate right away, you have showers. The water's black. You can smell the fumes. You can smell the car–carcinogens coming off the water. You go home that night, you have a shower, again, the water's black. Your body's absorbing it. One to two, even three days later you can have a shower and you'll see the water black, and you can smell the fumes of the fire coming out of your body.

And that's, that's what happening and that's why you have a latency period in regards to these cancers is because, where–when you’re a younger person, your body has a greater ability to battle off these car– carcinogens and cancer-causi ng agents. But as you get older, your immunity rate has less defence and that's when you see, as the older the firefighter gets, the higher the level of cancer compared to the general pop–population. And that's what you see.

What this legislation means is that firefighters that will be diagnosed with occupational testicular and esophageal cancer will now be covered for occupational disease, and many times that, that means death for a firefighter. Just in, in the last few years, we've had a number of firefighters that have died of occupational cancer. They're very young, in their 40s. And, and it really is a tragic thing. Cancer is prevalent in society, but just imagine a segment of that society which is having two to four times greater the level of tragedy than normal population in regards to cancer.

And the reason that we're getting this cancer is because of, of plastics and these increased use of chemicals within these plastics. One of the things I'd like to say before I conclude is that many of you were here seven years ago, in 2002, but some of your weren't. In 2002, Manitoba was the first province to have this legislation, and it was really a startling piece of legislation. It was something that the government unanimously–the Conservatives, the Liberals, the NDP–supported, and within seven short years you now see that six other provinces have now used the Manitoba model almost word for word.

And, in my position as Canadian trustee, I've travelled across Canada. I've met the premiers, the ministers of labour, whether it's a Liberal government, whether it’s a Conservative government of Alberta or Nova Scotia. In every one of these legislatures, it's been unanimous because it's the right thing to do, and I think that's really amazing in this day and age where everything seems to get so politicized, and I really appreciate the support that we have received from all political parties on this.

The last thing I would just like to say, to put it on the record, is that when this legislation is passed, Manitoba will not just have one of the strongest pieces of legislation to cover firefighters with occupational disease but will arguably have the strongest legislation of its kind in North America. And given the fact that North America has been a leader in occupational disease around the world, it could, in fact, be one of the strongest pieces of legislation in the world for protecting firefighters in occupational disease.

On behalf of all firefighters in the province of Manitoba, again, we can't thank you guys enough for all the work you've done in the last seven years. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? An Honourable Member: Thank you very much, Mr. Forrest, and thanks for coming for your presentation and– Madam Chairperson: Mrs. Taillieu. Mrs. Taillieu: Okay, I think the microphone is on now. I didn't think it was on before, so, again, thank you very much for coming.

I know when the legislation was introduced, we had a bit of a conversation because I wanted to check with you just to see if there were other cancers perhaps that you had recommended, and you did explain to me at the time that as science reviews the data, I guess, in terms of the cancers that are associated with firefighters, that then they're brought forward to legislators to add to the list, and, certainly, in your presentation, you've outlined the number of other provinces in the country that have done the same as Manitoba.

But I just wanted to ask you, in your written presentation, you do say that B.C. and Saskatchewan have coverage for testicular cancer, and Ontario has covered esophageal cancer. Have you presented to these jurisdictions as well, or someone's presented, and I'm wondering why–or what the justifications were or the arguments were that both of these cancers were not included in other jurisdictions. Mr. Forrest: What's happened is, the reason this legislation has been so unanimously supported and so strong is because of the science, and as the science

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 39 evolves, that's when we bring the issues forward. We do not want to bring a cancer forward unless it has solid science, scientific evidence, and what's happened is that the studies that have been coming out in the last 10 years are becoming more and more sophisticated.

So you're seeing newer studies coming out, and firefighting is probably one of the most studied professions in the world in regard to cancer, and what we've seen is that we always knew that testicular and esophageal, that there was a connection to firefighting, but we didn't know how strong those connections were until just recently with newer studies that have come forward. There is a study out of New Zealand that basically links testicular cancer to firefighting at the highest rate of any cancer.

So, as the studies come out, it's a matter of timing, and I have no doubt in my mind that when Manitoba passes this legislation, within a year to two years, every province will have esophageal and testicular cancer. As a matter of fact, I have been travelling across the country and, as we know, the wheels of politics can move very slowly.

Like, I just got back from Alberta, and Alberta has now brought me forward and we put our position forward and it's supported by the Conservative government of Alberta in regards to testicular and esophageal cancer, and I think you'll see Alberta be the next province–probably within the next, anywhere from four to eight weeks, Alberta will have testicular and esophageal cancer.

So it's a matter of timing and as the science comes forward, we bring it forward. * (18:50) Like, and this is a hard thing for us to do because we have firefighters dying of cancer at unbelievable rates, and it's tough to pick which cancers are the strongest represented within studies and we have to say, no, to some firefighters and we have to say, yes, to others.

That's a hard thing for us to do because we always look after all of ou r firefighters, but if we feel–and we have to take a step back and look objectively and say, are the studies conclusive, not just a probability, but a conclusively statement that allows us to be able to say that cancer, no one will argue against that cancer being presented and, and I think in the future you will see other cancers coming forward and we will be there to present it to you guys. Mrs.

Taillieu: Thank you very much, and, as you noted, government of all stripes have supported you and firefighters with this, with this legisla–with this legislation and, certainly, you have our support. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Ms. Allan. Hon. Nancy Allan (Minister charged with the administration of The Workers Compensation Act): Well, thank you very much, Alex.

I want to thank you so much for being here tonight to present to the committee, and I'd also like to thank you for all of the work that the United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg has done in regards to developing the presumptive occupational disease legislation for firefighters. I congratulate your union in regards to all of the work that you have done in collecting a huge body of scientific evid ence, 'cause that is what the legislation is based on and you just spoke to the difficulty that you have in regards to your membership.

I mean, we all know about how fires are changing and the hazards involved in those fires, and you have different fire fighters with different cancers. But to make sure that you're really moving this forward in the best way possible, you've really relied on the scientific evidence, and I really congratulate for that. You have changed the Canadian landscape, and I want to thank you for your leadership. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Our time for questions has expired. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, if I can just ask for leave just to give a brief comment, also, on it.

Madam Chairperson: Is there leave to allow Mr. Lamoureux to make a comment? An Honourable Member: Leave. Madam Chairperson: Leave is granted. Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, just to show the unanimous support amongst the three political parties here, Mr. Forrest , we do recognize the valuable contributions you, personally, along with your fellow union members, in terms of raising the profile of this issue not only in Manitoba, but for workers across the country, and just want to applaud the association's efforts and, and the type of work that you do for the province.

Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mr. Forrest: Thank you.

40 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 Madam Chairperson: I will now call on Gordon Hudson, private citizen. Do you have some written material for pres–distribution? Mr. Gordon Hudson (Private Citizen): No, I don't ma'am. Madam Chairperson: Then please proceed with your presentation. Mr. Hudson: Thank you for listening to me, if you are, and whatever. But I'm here on WCB. I was hurt in 19– November the 17th of '99, coming back from Toronto with a load.

The highway was blocked and that, and the roads were shut down and I went into the Husky down there, He arst, for–to have coffee and that, and let the other driver sleep.

When I went out to see about that much ice on the steps getting back into the truck, and I climbed up and just went– took my hand off the bar and went to reach for the steering wheel to get inside the cab, the ice broke under my one foot and I went down to the block of ice on the ground, broke this shoulder in two places, tore the tendons and the nerves in the side of my neck, and I still keep getting these–just feels like somebody sitting behind me and an electric prod touching my back. It goes right up through my neck and down my shoulders.

I–when I got back into Winnipeg I went to see the boss and he told me to go home and see my doctor, and we did that. I was on–I seen him for about six or seven months, then I seen another doctor, and nobody was really doing any good. WCB would not give me an MRI. I had to get the MRI, I got on my own, and I did that in 2005 and they found that my shoulder had broken three–two or three places, and the tendons and everything were tore. Dr.

Birt put it back together as best he could and the tendons didn't stay because they–he told me it had been in there for so long, the tension and everything that was pulling on, they broke again. So I don't have that, and the nerves going down were never fixed. And, in 2005, I went back to work, tried to go back to work and I was cut off by a driver coming back from Regina with a load, and I ended up going in the ditch 'cause he pulled up beside me and had six blue lights on the top of his truck and put them on and it just blinded me. I said I might as well pull a paper bag over my head.

I couldn't see the road, and I pulled over to the right too far, went down in the hidden approach, up across the highway and everything else. I was put in Brandon hospital for a while, a cracked collarbone on this one, and this one got re-broke again and then there the rotator cuff was hurt again. I went to the Health Sciences Centre on, I think it was, November of 2007. They did more tests and that, filled it with a dye to see how bad it was, and there was two tears in it. This one they weren't sure about, and I haven't gone back for another one yet.

But the WCB said, no, you can't have two tears in one rotator cuff; you can only have one. The doctors say different. Doct ors, Dr. Johnson [phonetic] , Dr. Birt and Dr. Decrumpee [phonetic] told me I wouldn't be able to go to driving a truck again because of the heavy lifting and that. I can't lift my arms above my shoulders, and the pain still comes through my back. WCB doesn't take any acknowledgement of any of that. As far as they're concerned, I'm okay and I can just keep on going.

I've tried to do things and I can't really get a j–a job driving again because of that, and I asked them if they'd retrain me, and they won't retrain me because of my age. And I'm left there with pretty well nothing to do and I don't know what I'm supposed to do. But I'd like to try to get some help or something and trying to get to a play where I can get in to get some kind of a job or some kind of a, something like that where I can make a living at it, or else–I've been cut off my WCB and I don't know why because I still can't do the work, and I don't know where, where it all ends.

There's people committing suicide because of this stuff going on and they say they're not in the wrong. Well, if you take a person's livelihood and everything away from them, leave them with nothing, you're leaving with nothing but to take it out on themselves. And it's not fair, and that's basically all I really have. I don't know what can be done about it or not. Like, I phoned Mr. Scott on March 3rd and asked him a question about who was going to be repaying for my carpal tunnel damage that I have. That was supposed to have been done in, in 2000. They said I didn't need it, so I didn't get it done.

And I seen a doctor about six to seven months ago and he told me if I didn't have it, I'd have a bigger problem because there isn't enough blood going through my, my hand and he's addressed it for an operation now, but I don't know when it's going to be. I asked Mr. Scott who was going to be paying for it and he said I'll let you know. He says, I'll phone

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 41 you right back. I haven't heard from Mr. Scott yet. So, my opinion, the WCB isn't very good. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the committee? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Hudson. I will now call on Kimberley Buchannon, private citizen. Do you have some materials to distribute? Thank you. You may begin your presentation. Ms. Kimberly Buchannon (Private Citizen): Thank you. Our hero made the ultimate sacrifice.

The following compassionate statement is in loving memory of Ron Martin, fallen firefighter, written by myself, Kimberly Buchannon, with help from my mother, Betty Martin, and my sister, Lisa Martin, who are both in the first row to my left. One of the proudest days in our lives was the day my father, Ron Martin, retired as captain from the Winnipeg Fire Department.

After 30 years of saving lives, homes, businesses and helping to keep our community safe, in January 2002, my father was home safe. * (19:00) Retired at 53, he had never been seriously burned in a fire, but if the fire doesn't kill you, the smoke will. Like all firefighters, he was exposed to deadly carcinogens. Our homes are filled with these cancer-causing agents found in simple items such as particle board, insulation, all purpose cleaner, cat litter, paint, weed killer and even moth balls. PBDE, a fire retardant is a persistent toxin used in the making of computers, TVs, mattresses and even couch cushions.

For 30 years, my father dedicated his life to saving others and sacrificed his health in doing so. He suffered with acid refl ux for many years, and in less than two years after retiring he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer. Dr. Helmut Unruh operated on my father December 23rd, '03, removing most of his esophagus and the tumours that were spreading. There was only one inch of his esophagus they left in order for Dr. Unruh to stretch his stomach up and reattach it close to his throat. Out of 24 biopsies that were taken, 16 were malignant.

He was cut open from front to back, and it took 76 staples to sew his body back together. We spent days and nights over that holiday season in the hospital with him. And while recovering in HSC, on January 1st, '04, he suffered a massive heart attack and was taken by ambulance to St. Boniface. Unconscious, the doctors continued to resuscitate him, and he was finally revived after the fifth attempt. Then sent back to HSC, he was in intensive care unit for a few days. By mid-January, he was released from HSC and sent home.

My father was an extremely strong-willed man, and it is amazing to think of the amount of pain he endured in those few weeks. We thought he would heal from the surgery and live for years, and we were wrong. On March 9th, 2004, my father entered palliative care at the Beausejour Hospital as the cancer had spread to his brain. He began to slip away at an alarming pace. For the last few days of his life, he was in a catatonic state, yet, my mother tried her best to maintain my father's dignity by ensuring he was clean and shaven.

One morning, as she turned his face to shave him, we noticed tears rolling down his face. We could now physically see more tumours growing on his neck and chest and throughout his body. No longer able to speak or move, he could only cry from the overwhelming pain he was feeling, and all we could do was hope that he would not have to suffer for much longer. I wish that none of you ever have to go through the agony of watching someone you love with all your heart have their body and mind taken over by cancer.

My father died March 30th, 2004, leaving behind his wife, who was his best friend, two daughters, two grandsons, two sons-in-law and his father. I hope to have children of my own one day, and it makes me incredibly sad to think that they will never know their grandfather, our hero. His loving memory will forever be in our hearts. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Ms. Allan: Kimberley, thank you very much for being here this evening, and thank you very much for sharing his story, and I just wanted to express my deepest regret for your loss. Ms. Buchanan: Thank you very much. Mrs. Taillieu: Thank you very much.

I can hardly trust my voice right now, but thanks for coming and sharing that with us. Ms. Buchanan: Thank you.

42 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, I, too, just want to echo the same sentence and give my condolences and recognizing that you have your mother and your sister here, and it's nice to see the association and the union bringing forward a valid–valid cause. And I'm sure that your father played a critical role in what it is that we have here today. It's nice to see your physical presence as we pass this thing through committee. Ms. Buchanan: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Ms. Buchanan: Thank you.

Bill 3–The Forest Amendment Act Madam Chairperson: We will now commence with Bill No. 3, and we will deal with the out-of-town presenters first. So I will now call upon Lawrence Anderson Feilberg, Kurian Lumber–pardon me, Kurian Forest Products. Is Mr. Feilberg present? Floor Comment: Feilberg. Madam Chairperson: Feilberg? If Mr., Mr. Feilberg is not present, then his name will drop to the bottom of the list. I will now call on Ward Perchuk, Spruce Products Limited. Do you have some written materials to distribute? Mr. Ward Perchuk (Spruce Products Ltd.): Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

Please begin your presentation. Mr. Perchuk: Thank you. I'm here to speak today on Bill 3. I am the president of Spruce Products Ltd. in Swan River, and I'm also chairman of the Forest Industry Association of Manitoba. We have, we have two concerns of Bill 3: No 1, banning logging in provincial parks; and No. 2, the proposed fine structure under that bill. I'll touch on banning, banning logging in provincial parks first. Logging and harvesting as it's–we refer to it as, can, in fact, improve forest health and forest fire resistance. The boreal forest is a disturbance forest.

So without man's intervention, that forest normally regenerates through fire . And now that we are present in the forest, we're developing things like provincial parks over the years, we have cottages, campgrounds. Of course, we have to protect those values, and the Province does an excellent job of fire suppression within our forests in Manitoba. But by doing that, we're taking an important part of our ecosystem out of the, out of the equation, and that is fire.

So now that, that fire is largely controlled and we don't see very large fires in this province, we can use harvesting to mimic the effects of fire, and that has been proven in numerous jurisdictions. So, without, without fire in the long term–like certainly this will not happen in the short term–in the long term, we will see overmature forests that'll be susceptible to disease and insects and, and ultimately uncontrollable fires which could damage the values I spoke of earlier.

So, simply putting a fence around our parks and saying, no, we're not going to have any logging, is not a sound management practice, and, and I think even if you were to query the, the people of the, the branch of Manitoba Conservation, the Forestry branch, they–I think they would certainly agree with that statement. So, in, in that regard, you know, I, I, I am a cottager within a provincial park myself and I have no concerns of harvesting. It's tightly regulated. Conservation does an excellent job.

There's, there's not a, a single tree that's cut without, you know, ex–a large number of, of approvals and, and regulations in, in place. Would you like to question me on that part before I move on to the fines or just go forward? Madam Chairperson: Continue and finish your presentation. Mr. Perchuk: Okay. In regards to the, fine structure, there are some fairly large fines being proposed, some as high as $500,000, and we don't have an issue of that per se, but, but we wanna ensure is that, I, I cannot dream of a situation in this province where any actions that would justify a fine of $500,000 has ever occurred.

But what we wanna ensure is that somehow, if, if that is going to be in place, that there's a, a very trained person–like I would say, let the director of Forestry be the final call, like make these fines administrative in nature because for us to find ourselves in front of a, a rookie natural resource officer and perhaps, the wrong judge, you know, a small infraction could become a thing that could possibly put a company out of

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 43 business. So that's our only concern there. We're not opposing the levels, but how they–how they're applied and how they're levied in the end, that needs to be addressed. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. * (19:10) Mrs. Heather Stefanson (Tuxedo): Thank you very much and thank you, Ward, for your presentation today, and thank you for, for coming into Winnipeg to give this tonight.

I wanted to ask, I know that you sort of wear two hats and you're here on behalf of Spruce Products Ltd. tonight, but I know you're also the head of the Forest Industry Associat ion of Manitoba. And I'm wondering if you could give us an indication as w–as to what kind of consultation took place with your organization as well as with you as the president of– someone who is obviously a stakeholder within the community with respect to this bill. What kind of consultation took place with you and your organizations before this legislation came forward? Mr.

Perchuk: There was no consultation with the Forest Industry Association. Mrs. Stefanson: And that, yes again, that very much concerns me as a stakeholder from two perspectives in this as well, and I just want to thank you for coming forward tonight for bringing your views forward. And I'm just wondering if there's anything that you can add just from–maybe not from the association's side but as the head of Spruce Products. Is there anything about your organization–how many employees do you have within your organization and do you think this will have a negative impact on your business? Mr.

Perchuk: Our company or all people involved in the forest industry in the mountain forest section, and I'm speaking in particular those that would harvest wood in the Duck Mountain Provincial Park are very fortunate because, as you know, the act excludes the Duck Mountain Provincial Park, and I believe the minister did th at because simply there was no options. There's no other place for us to find the timber, but, you know, from other members of the Forest Industry Association in other parts of the province, they've certainly expressed concerns to me that this is going to impact their livelihoods. Hon.

Stan Struthers (Min ister of Conservation): Thank you very much, Ward, for your presentation. I always look forward to getting up in the Swan River area, my hometown, and especially sitting down with you and Dick Walker [phonetic] and others on a number of occasions to talk about these sorts of policies, the kinds of things that we need to be discussing in the forest industry.

I take great interest in what you're saying in terms of defining structure and trying to, trying to put in place a fair system that will, first and foremost, protect our forests but also not be the kind of a punitive approach that would justify what you've said earlier, but I do have a question. Part of the clause–part of the bill is a clause that sets aside our ability to make decisions in our parks to get quickly to areas that are infested with pests of one sort or another. I take it you approve of that approach within this, within this bill? Mr. Perchuk: Yes, very much, honourable minister.

I think that's an excellent approach. I just hope it doesn't get into a bureaucratic system that will take, you know, far too long to gain the approvals because when these sort of things are–the mountain pine beetle in B.C. Look what it's done to B.C., and that's a clear example of this type of legislation getting out of control. I agree with you, Stan, that's very appropriate. Madam Chairperson: Any further questions? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Perchuk: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: I will now call on Wade Cable, Louisiana-Pacific Canada. Do you have some materials to distribute?

Mr. Wade Cable (Louis iana-Pacific Canada Ltd.): No, I do not. Madam Chairperson: Then please begin your presentation. Mr. Cable: Thank you for allowing me to present to you this evening. My name is Wade Cable and I represent Louisiana-Pacific in Swan River, Manitoba.

So L-P, in general, is supportive of many of the proposed changes within the bill, such as tighter legislation for illegal logging; increased authority to officers to inspect timber products and docu- mentation; the market-based dues system, allowing for forest renewal to be conducted by third parties, licensees and quota holders; and the implementation

44 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 of a forest management fee, and all of these changes are going to help the province and the industry as we grow. So the change that L-P is struggling with is

section 37 dealing with offences. So we question the need for these changes and, as far as I'm aware, the level of compliance to The Forest Act is very good. I would have expected penalties to be increasing if laws were being broken due to lack of consequence. I don't see this as the case, so it leads me to ask: What is driving the move to make these changes? The proposed changes to The Forest Act offence

section appear to be far greater than in all but one province. So while I'll peek and support appropriate increases in penalties, there are several procedural differences between Manitoba and these other provinces. In British Columbia, for example, even though the fines are higher and imprisonment is available as a penalty, there are also pr ocedures and processes in place that allow the industry the ability to make the decisions knowing what the implications of them are.

Also within the province of B.C. they use forestry staff to work through the fine process, and, again, if the company disagrees with the verdict on the case, there is an appeal system that is outside of the judiciary process as well. So we believe that there are some gaps with respect to enforcement procedures, processes, that need to be addressed to allow Manitoba businesses security that the proposed changes will be enforced consistently, and a real concern is how the act will be enforced. Currently, many of the regulations contain wording that can be inconsistently applied.

So a solution may be for the Province to have timber inspections conducted by Forestry branch staff rather than natural resource officers. The risk on the industry side is increasing and we at L-P expect the ambiguity and uncertainty contained within the regulations will be taken out as well.

Just to speak to the in dustry with independent certification schemes such as SFI, CSA and FSC, standard operating procedur es, professional logger status, the industry is changing, and public consultation, openness, we're all making that move to be more open in our processes, so that's why we see the changes to the offences act, offences portion of Bill 3, as a concern, what's driving those. And so, I mean, we would like to see a realistic level that includes clear procedures to allow everybody the ability to make the best possible decisions. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for the presentation.

Does the committee have any questions? Mr. Struthers: Yeah, I–thank you for coming and presenting to us. I note that you've–the main part of your presentation kind of picked up where Ward left off in terms of some suggestions in terms of how to better do the fine and set up a different structure. What you're suggesting is something more administrative rather than court led or the path down to courts. I'm not aware that the court system has gone the maximum in terms of fines that have been levied against any of the forestry companies. Am I correct in that?

And does that not give you some comfort that, that, that maybe there's not as much to worry about as what you're suggesting? Mr. Cable: Yeah, that is absolutely correct. I mean, we have never received the maximum fine, but, however, the potential is there, and not knowing what would drive that potential fine to take place is what is really the uncertainty for the industry. Mrs. Stefanson: Thanks very much for your presentation this evening, and just a quick question for you.

Is this the first opportunity you've had to bring these issues forward with the government, or was there a consultation process that took place that included you at some point along the way? Mr. Cable: I wouldn't say a consultation as such. I was aware of many of the changes that were within the act but, no, not a consultation. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I just heard you say, not a consultation. Would that then imply that you were just, in essence, told this is what's going to be happening and it was just kind of left at that? Mr. Cable: Yeah, that's correct. Madam Chairperson: Thank you.

Seeing no further questions, thank you for your presentation. I will now call on Doug Hunt, Tolko Industries. Do you have some materials to distribute? Mr. Doug Hunt (Tolko Industries Ltd.): Yes. * (19:20) Madam Chairperson: Thank you

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 45 Please commence with your presentation. Mr. Hunt: Thank you. My name is Doug Hunt and I'm the woodlands manager with Tolko Manitoba operation, based in The Pas. Tolko Industries is a privately owned forest products company with manufacturing facilities in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and the corporate office is located in Vernon, B.C. In Manitoba, Tolko has two mills in The Pas. One is a random length sawmill and the other is a kraft paper mill.

The two mills consume about 1.2 million cubic metres on an annual basis, and employ about 700 people directly. My responsibility's to supply those two mills with wood on a regular basis. One unique thing about our woodlands operation is that we do not own any equipment. All the equipment is contracted out to independent contractors. The contract work includes the harvesting, forest renewal, field surveys.

We do have a small staff of foresters and technicians to, to manage these contractors, and we have a contract work force located in the small communities, such as Wabowden, Cranberry Portage, Moose Lake, Grand Rapids, Easterville and The Pas. And several of these contractors–several of the larger ones are First Nations. My main concern with the forest act–forest amendment act–is with respect to the, the offences and the fines.

At Tolko, we don't intend to contravene a practice, but if it occurs there should be some assessment of the risk, the order of magnitude of the penalty and the appropriate due diligence for the defence of the contravention. My experience indicates most, if not all infractions are minor in nature; i.e., there's no impact on the environment. But if they end up in court, there's a good chance they could be perceived as major. I don't believe the court system has the time or the understanding of forestry to do an adequate job of handling an infraction that has no impact on the environment.

Tolko recommends a process where the fractions, or the majority of the fractions, the minor ones, should be handled outside the court system, and we recommend that they should be handled by a, an independent third-party person who is knowledgeable about forestry. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan and Ontario have all set up an administrative penalty process that allows most infractions to be dealt with outside the court system.

Saskatchewan, Alberta and B.C. have also implemented a results-based environmental regulatory system where the government and industry personnel work collaboratively, are accountable and have a clear distinction that's made between administrative and environmental oversight. I've handed one handout there with respect to the–what's going on in Saskatchewan. They've, they've just started into their administrative review process, and that's just a, an excerpt from a publication that just came out recently, and they're, they're going down the road to handling their administration process with a third party.

Some other things on, on the bullets here I've handed out. Most companies, for instance, Tolko, we're–we've been certified to ISO 14001 which is an environmental management system. And it's a, you know, system that, that ensures that we have policies and practices in place to improve the environmental performance of our operations. And if we do have an incident, that system is designed to improve the situation where you develop improved practices. So that's everything for my presentation. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much. Are there questions from the committee members? Mrs.

Stefanson: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening. And I gather there were probably some discussions that, that you had and perhaps some consultation, or a little bit before hand of this. I just wonder what–how–to what extent the discussions or if there were any discussions or consultations before hand. As we understand, there was some compensation for your organization and if you could just tell us what that was or if, if any, I guess, at this point. Mr. Hunt: There was some discussions on certain aspects but generally there was, there was–we saw the final product after it was put out. Mrs.

Stefanson: So there was very limited consultation before hand. I mean, it was–would you say that they sort of came to you with this is what we will be doing and, you know, how are you going to live with it, kind of thing? And how do you think, how is this going to affect your organization within– and your employees within Manitoba?

46 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 Mr. Hunt: Yes, there wasn't a lot of consultation and like I say, we're, we're a–the offences are our main concern with this legislation. Mr. Struthers: Yes, I think we need to be specific both in the case of Tolko and in Louisiana-Pacific. The meetings that we had were in terms of the, the logging in parks question where there was consultation that took place. And, what you seem to be keying in on, is the, the structure in terms of, of fines, which I'm very interested in.

Are you, are you–is your proposal that, that the more egregious of the actions, contraventions would be still handled in the courts and the more minor infractions would be handled through some type of administrative body? Or would you–are you proposing that they all end up in the administrative stream? Mr. Hunt: Yes, no, I believe there's probably a fine, you know, there's a cut off where obviously some need to go to court. I don't think that should happen very often. I've been in this business about 35 years and I just can't recall, you know, one that should go to court now.

I personally have gone to court on, on a number of these things and–which were minor in nature. Mr. Struthers: Just quickly then. What, what kind of an infraction? Like, what specific–what would it be that would end up be–you would consider major? What, what actual kind of action out in the forest? What kind of an infraction would be a major one as opposed to a minor one? Can you give us examples of that? Mr. Hunt: Pro–I would say a major one would be probably a major water course where you're pushing foreign material into the water and that nature and you could be, you know, taking away some fish habitat.

A minor one might be cutting some trees in a buffer zone where the operator didn't see the flagging, you know, in the middle of the night or something and he went across the buffer zone. I would call that minor. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Seeing no further questions. Thanks for your presentation. I will now call on Grant Kurian, Grant Kurian Trucking Ltd. Do you have some mate rials for distribution? Mr. Grant Kurian (Grant Kurian Trucking Ltd.): No, ma'am. Madam Chairperson: Then please proceed. Mr. Kurian: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Grant Kurian. I'm a third-generation logger.

I've been in the logging industry for 38 years. Plus my children are employees in the forest industry as well. I'm the owner of Grant Kurian Trucking Ltd., employing 20 full-time and 10 to 15 part-time employees. * (19:30) I am wondering why we're having this hearing. I was under the impression that we had a chance to share knowledge and, hopefully, some understanding of what the bush business is about. And I heard about this on the–that the bill was coming through–over the radios.

And being in business for this long, and being in the southeast corner of Manitoba employing a number of people for a number of years, and being a reputable operation trying to fulfil all guidelines that are set before us which are pretty extreme. The gentlemen before us–before myself–were saying the different certifications that the mills have to get, and it's not just the mills. It comes right down to the contractors. And what that means is we have to abide by certain rules and regulations, and those rules and regulations are not small. I'm filling out a book right now this thick for SWOs.

SWO, it's called Safe Work Ontario, and we have to abide by so many rules and regulations. So I'm just–I would like to emphasize this fact that we don't just go into the bush and knock down trees and, you know, pay no attention. So I was under the impression that hearings like this were to glean knowledge and understanding for our government leaders to make good and proper policies, decisions and laws. But, after listening to CJOB in March, I heard Mr. Struthers say to the public, there will be no more logging in Manitoba parks, period.

And on another occasion I approached an MLA to discuss logging in the parks, and the MLA said to me, there is nothing to discuss; it's done. I feel and can prove that the bill to ban logging in Manitoba parks is totally wrong and not environmentally friendly. The forest industry in Manitoba has been around since the pioneers came to Manitoba. The forest industry has come a long way

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 47 to making sure our forests are and will continue to be sustainable forests. Industry pays Manitoba Conservation $6.69 a cubic metre to reseed the harvested-out forests, replacing the mature forests with a young, vibrant, healthy forest. A young forest cleans our air while an over-mature forest pollutes our air, emitting carbon dioxide. Also, an over-mature forest is more susceptible to tree-killing bugs, fire and blow-down.

Banning logging in the Manitoba parks also will contribute a–well, banning logging in the Manitoba parks will take a sustainable forest and possibly make it become an non-sustainable forest, the reason being, in the last number of years, more and more of our Manitoba forests have been banned–have banned logging due to national reserves being created, traditional Native lands being in dispute; numerous groups, lobby groups, suppor ting birds, animals, critters, spiders, snakes locking up land.

And, in short, what I'm saying is the pie in Manitoba was a nice, whole-sized pie where it was very sustainable forest and we could work amongst all the rules, regulations and lobbyists and environmental groups. And now that pie has gotten so small that, the way I understand the industry, you are now taking something that was sustainable and making it unsustainable. Thank you. Madam Chairperson: Thank you for your presentation. Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you again very much for your presentation, and I think my question is going to be somewhat redundant.

You did mention earlier that you sort of heard about this on the radio, and it sort of begs that, you know, the question as to whether or not you believe there was enough proper consultation out there about this issue and dialogue out there with respect to this legislation before it was brought forward here. Mr. Kurian: No, there was no consultation on behalf of the Southeast Quota Holders Association which I belong to. They're the association in the southeast corner here. As I said earlier, we heard about it.

I heard about it on the radio and found out later that there was some talks with certain companies in regards to setting up some deals, and, really, I think it was, it was done very disrespectively to the industry itself. Like I says, we do have some knowledge and understanding about the bush. When you live in it most of your life, you, you glean this stuff, and, and it sure would have been nice for the government to come and approach the different organizations and say, what do you think about this? What is–what impact is this going to have on you?

Like, the impact on my company is, basically, you're forcing the logging industry out of Manitoba with your new legislation. Mr. Blaine Pedersen (Carman): I was just wondering if you give us a few number, how many people your company employs and, and with this bill going through, what happens to your company? Mr. Kurian: Year-round I employ about 20 and during the winter we add another 10 to 15 employees. This, this is going to be a big impact because Manitoba, for instance, is going ahead with this–and like I'm saying, in the sout heast corner, I can't speak for Tolko, L-P, Spruce Prod ucts in their corner.

If they have a nice forest there that is going to be a sustainable forest for the next number of years, that's just great. But in the southeast corner here, Conservation has, has–when, whenever we have our meetings, Conservation comes to, to, to the meetings and we ask them, okay, we're cutting–I'm going to use a figure–we're cutting 500,000 cubic metres in the southeast corner a year. Can we get some more? And they say, no, there's no more, no more wood to get, you guys are cutting it, it's–we can't go any more, otherwise it'll no longer be a sustainable forest.

All of a sudden, a company wanted to move into Manitoba and Conservation came up with a bunch of numbers. All of a sudden, the numbers grew from– and again, don't quote the numbers, but–from 500,000 to 1.2 million cubic metres in the area. And we're–being in, in the area, we're saying, where is this wood? We know that there's more than 500,000 that we could cut every year and this could maintain a sustainable forest, but 1.2 million? So I, I really–I don't appreciate the way this is being treated by the government. This is, this is very important.

Logging industry across Canada doesn't get much publicity other than the bad words like clearcutting, those dirty rott en loggers, so on and so forth. And it's too bad because the industry in Canada is big and Canada is losing this industry. We’ve lost approximately 250 mills in North America in the last three years. We've lost approximately 67,000 jobs in Canada in the last three

48 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 years. Now, anybody who doesn't realize that this is big–like I said, it saddens my heart because this industry has been going on right from–my kids are in this, there–that's four generations, so yeah, is this going to impact us? Absolutely, because we're headed on the way out. There's no balance anymore. We want rules and regulations, but we don’t want to be ruled and regulated out of the province, which–that's what's happening. Mr. Struthers: Thanks for your advice. Thanks for coming in tonight and sharing it with us.

I want to, I want to begin by, by thanking you for your co-operation in working with our regional staff to, to find alternative wood sources outside of the parks that a number of companies in the southeast were working in who, who did move–not out of the province, but, but–out of the, the parks in the area. I, I want to congratulate you on working with us to find those alternatives and to find that replacement, because what we did not want to do is have layoffs of people a nd hardships for, for local companies as–such as yours. So thanks for working with us on that.

I, I am very interested in what you have said about the, about the health of the forest within the park and our ability to move quickly, as somebody–I think it was Ward Perchuk–said earlier, to, to, to retain the, the decision-making ability to move into a park, if need be, to control a pest or, or another, you know, act of Mother Nature that we need to, that we need to be concerned about. I take it from your comments that you support that part of our legislation. I understand that your concerns with the rest of it, but I'm very worried that we maintain an ability to protect those forests.

I, I would, I would take it you support at least that part of our, of our Bill 3. * (19:40) Mr. Kurian: Yes, I do. Madam Chairperson: Thank you. Our time for questions has expired. Thank you very much for your presentation. I will know call on Roberta Kurian, Seer Logging Incorporated. Mr. Vice-Chairperson in the Chair. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Do you have a written copy of your presentation, madam? Ms. Roberta Kurian (Seer Logging Inc.) No, only oral. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: You may proceed. Ms. Kurian: Thank you.

I'd like start with a letter that I distributed to Premier Gary Doer and every MP of the province and Canada. It is with deep regret I write this letter, deep regret for the disregard a government that thought nothing of an important industry and the people who work in it, treating them as an afterthought in a life- changing decision; deep regret for government prejudice against our logging industry; deep regret for destructive and harmful public comments spoken by our Premier. I am the owner of a logging company in southeastern Manitoba.

At present we are working in the White–Whiteshell Provincial Park at the request of the Conservation Department and the present government to help with the ongoing clean-up caused by last spring's horrific windstorm. Have you had a chance to look at the damage caused not by logging or loggers haphazardly cutting trees down near picnic areas but by an incredible force of nature? Making roads into the damaged areas have cost my company well over $200,000. We have also enlarged trails used by snowmobile clubs all at our own cost. We hire 25 to 35 trained harvest technicians.

Working in the clean-up areas is far more difficult and danger ous than regular timber harvesting. The companies that haul our chips, that's the product created from whole trees, employ 40 people. We have hauled smaller loads because of the poor road conditions and restrictions. This has caused a marked increase in our fuel consumption. Just over three years ago we helped with the clean-up of the Sandilands Provincial Forest, also hit by a dramatic windstor m, at the government's request.

In order to speed up this process, we even graded the road every s econd day at own expense, ensuring the quick movement of product. We are presently in St. Labre, Sandilands forest, chipping pine ravaged by fire caused by a recreational off-road vehicle. I wonder how many environmental studies have been issued in regards to the loss of property, lives and endangered species that could have happened if logging companies had not dropped other areas of work to aid in the clean- up of these disasters.

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 49 Of course, we benefit as a company, as do our employees, the banks, the retail industry, both provincial-federal tax departments from our work. This year I will be paying payroll tax as well. We have invested millions of dollars to aid in the emergency clean-up by purchasing more equipment. In the next disaster, will there be any logging companies left for Manitoba's government to call on? Let me tell you some of the costs of being a logging company–consistent damage to our reputation by even our own leader of Manitoba.

I've walked down school hallways, viewed the pictures drawn by children depicting logging as some sort of destructive environmental monster. It seems people– they feel have a right to destroy our property. After all, we're only loggers. In the past six weeks arson to a machine that will cost over a million dollars to replace, if we could; graffiti painted on our heavy equipment with a beautiful shade of pink; destruction of camp heaters and cords causing power to be cut; theft even of our environmentally friendly outhouse; theft of timber pulled out of sites; theft of tools, batteries, fuel.

We are in constant need of security personnel. By the way, this spring we passed tree planters replanting an area we had cleaned up in the Whiteshell Provincial Park. They were noted as saying how impressed they were at the job we did. The comments Premier Gary Doer made by you on November 21st at the meeting with Tembec, Tolko, environmental agencies and the media probably cut the deepest. I am appalled at the lack of respect and the pred–prejudicial attitudes of de– generations of extremely hardworking individuals called loggers.

My great-grandfather came from Finland in 1919, starting a logging company which employed both residents and newly-arriving immigrants. I still live in that same town he lived in and harvest timber in some of the same areas he harvested in, albeit with different machinery–as do my sons–five generations. Could this be sustainable forestry practice or an entrenched practice of decades quoted by Conservation Minister Stan Struthers, speaking of the amount of work it has taken to put a stop to logging in the parks.

Quote from the Winnipeg Free Press: A park is a park is a park and you should be able to go and have a picnic without a tree falling down. Please see enclosed pictures of fallen trees culled by the latest windstorm, not a logger. Please–I have the unlimited joy of constantly being harassed to fill out Statistic Canada questionnaires. I've never been asked how many trees our company has dropped on picnickers. I have also never been instructed to fill in an answer of how many picnic tables we regularly destroy in our line of work. What an outlandish and hurtful comment.

It seems you would not only happily destroy our industry, but publicly humiliate us as well. Dear sir, please tell me how I should explain to my employees as well as the trucking companies, this comment and the lack of regard shown to the long hours spent working at this clean-up? Will there be enough employment insurance to cover another area p–area with 80 people laid off? There will probably be many more if we have such a major layoff, since we are one of the biggest customers in our local credit union and fuel co-op and support many local retailers.

I've received many encouraging phone calls after people read the Free Press. People have nothing to do–that have nothing to do with our industry are disgusted with your comments, sir. It certainly doesn't make up for what has transpired, but it helps. Question: where does it go from here and which industry do you hit next? My concern with Bill No. 3 or 13 with the banning of all logging in so many of our pri– provincial parks is the waste of a renewable natural resource. As logging companies, we pay dues to harvest every tree for replanting. Trees have to be harvested.

Old trees succumb easier to insect infestation, fire and wind. As seen in the 2'06 blow down in the Sandilands Provincial Forest, the unbelievable loss of the July 2'07 windstorm in the Whiteshell Provincial Park and the 2'08 fire in the Sandilands forest. The older the tree, the more likely it will fall, resulting in unharvestable forests becoming carbon dio–dioxide emitters, rather than the filters that the forest needs. This will fu rther speed the destruction of more forests and harm the environment. There has been a lot of dialogue in regards to biomass and wood fibre being used as a viable energy source.

Bill C-150 was just passed in Ontario, the green energy act promoting forests as hydro generators. What will the Manitoba government do with the massive remains of fibre in this wind-destroyed forest that still needs clearing? The fire danger in the Whiteshell Provincial Park is horrific. This clean-up is far from complete, yet the Manitoba government and environmental groups

50 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 are proclaiming victory. New trees in unharvested areas will have a difficult time to regenerate because of the excessive amount of leftover windfall. The vast amount of rotting debris will be producing incredible amounts of carbon dioxide, endangering wildlife and the climate. Instead of this wood fibre being processed and used for energy, it is being neglected. With the mills closing at alarming rates, logging as, as a viable energy resource needs to be looked at more seriously.

Change is supposed to be a progressive and beneficial, yet this bill would be detrimental to our province. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Ms. Kurian. Questions? Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much for your presentation this evening and wondering if you can indicate how many employees that your organization employs. Floor Comment: I had 43. Today I made out cheques– Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Ms. Kurian. Ms. Kurian: Oh, sorry–for six. Mrs. Stefanson: Sorry. Could you repeat that? Ms. Kurian: This winter I had 43; today, I made out paycheques for six. Mrs.

Stefanson: Are you concer–you're obviously must be very concerned about the lack of consultation that has taken place to let people like you and your organization, you know or to talk to you and your organization about the future of logging in, in Manitoba. Are you concerned about that lack of consultation, what that could lead to and the lack of, of consistency when it comes to logging policy in the province? Ms. Kurian: Yes, I am very concerned. With all the letters I wrote, I did receive three back, one from the Honourable Stan Struthers. Thank you. Mr.

Lamoureux: Did you actually get a response from the Premier (Mr. Doer)? Ms. Kurian: No, I didn't. * (19:50) Mr. Lamoureux: Whether it's yourself or a couple of other presenters, do appreciate the fact that it's been very educational for my self to hear some first- hand experience.

And I see in your facial expressions and so forth some very passion for the industry and I see that there has been a lot of harm through, mainly, misinformation about a valuable industry that does have a place here in the province of Manitoba, and just wanted to emphasize, whether it's for yourself or previous speakers, drawing the issue first-hand to our attention in terms of the ban in public parks.

It is something in which I know on a personal–we'll look more into, and appreciate th e fact that you took the time to come here this evening to make your presentation, including the other members from your industry. Thank you. Ms. Kurian: Thank you. Mr. Struthers: Thanks. Thanks, Ms. Kurian, for coming out tonight. I also want to–I want to begin by commending your company for the work that you have done in the, in the area of the blow–the '07 blow-down, and also the blow-down at the Sandilands.

I think that does help all of us to understand the one part of this bill that we do, that we do, I think, take very seriously, and that is to be able to respond to those kinds of events, whether they be blow-downs or pest events that create a whole lot of kindling for a big fire. And we know, especially in that part of the province with cottages bigger than any house that I'll ever own, I think, dispersed amongst that, that wood. So I want to congratulate and your company for your work there. I'm interested in what you said about having–in the winter you had 40 employees. Today you have six.

Is that because you can only cut when it's frozen conditions and that next winter when you're back up and running again you'll have 40 staff again, or is that because we, worked with you to move from the provincial park to an area where you have the same amount of fibre? I don't understand exactly what you were saying there. Ms. Kurian: No, sir, it's not because we can only cut in winter. We cut year round and those employees were full-time employees. It's not because we have been taken out of the park. To some degree it is. We wouldn't be hauling because of restrictions or working because of restrictions.

It's because of the mill closures. Mr. Struthers: Yes, and, and that's my point. I mean, I think what we need to do is be able to deal very, very directly with the data that we have in front of us, and we have to make sure we're operating on data that is reflective of the landscape.

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 51 There will always be seasonal ups and downs. We are very much in an area right now worldwide where there's, where there's a lot of mills across North America that are real ly very much under a lot of pressure. We've seen a lo t of closures everywhere. To a certain extent in Manitoba, I think you'd agree with me, we have dodged a bit a bullet on this, and haven't been hit nearly as hard as other areas. We, we want, we want to value logging in this, in this province.

We want to make decisions that are good for all public policy, including what we believe is a good public policy of removing logging from parks, and we don't want that to be a negative reflection on your industry. And we want to work with you to be able to get that message out there. But we don't want–what I don't want to have happen is to have the worldwide downturn in the economy get all the–I don't want our provincial logging in parks policy to get all the blame for a worldwide downturn in the economy. That's my point and I, and I hope you agree with me on that. Ms.

Kurian: I do to some degree, but my concern was with all of the unfinished business in the park. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Time has expired. Thank you for your presentation, ma'am. Ms. Kurian: Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Call Mr. Marvin Hovorka of J. Hovorka and Sons Ltd. Mr. Hovorka, I see you have a written copy of your presentation. Mr. Marvin Hovorka (J. Hovorka and Sons Ltd.): Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. There's, I believe, only–I think I counted 18 instead of 20. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Okay. The Clerk will distribute them. You may begin. Mr. Hovorka: You'll have to excuse the handwritten copies.

They make for in teresting reading, but I won't tell you the story behind it all and why that happened. My name is Marvin Hovorka, owner in J. Hovorka and Sons Ltd. of Sprague, Manitoba. We're a third-generation logging, sawmill and wood production corporation, pulling wood quota in private woodlands. We have experienced considerable changes in the timber industry over the past 50 years, and we're prepared to meet present and future challenges. Bill 13, The Forest Amendment Act, is overdue with some exceptions.

It is in the provincial interest to review and establish policy that guides sustainable forest use in the province. The exceptions we are concerned with are the lack of public consultation and specific amendments. I support the use of Manitoba forest resources through sustainable forest management practices, but I do not support the ban of commercial logging in the provincial parks,

section 15.1(1) and (2), as this will ultimately lead to an unhealthy forest, a resource strain on the forest management units, FMU 20 and 23, in my particular region, annual allowable cuts, or AAC, specifically softwood resource, and the economic, social and financial sustainable– sustainability of the industry.

Section 37(4) and 37(5), penalties for individuals and corporations, represent to us an oppressive, draconian levy that discriminates between individuals and corporations, both small, individually created and large multi-nationals. Many small corporations are family owned, rural operations, which we represent.

Section 15.1(4), definition: commercial timber cutting right. The Forest Amendment Act and The Provincial Park Act, in essence, recognize the need to permit logging in the parks in instances of forest fires, forest pest-disease control, forest rehabilitation, ecosystem preservation, forest research, but they fail to mention acts of God, i.e. windstorms, tornadoes and conditions of that type, the very problem that brought about the withdrawal of cutting rights in the Whiteshell. Clearcutting became a loathsome term in an environmentally sensitive and emotionally charged atmosphere.

Therefore, it became politically incorrect to cut a tree in the provincial parks of Manitoba, but it's politically correct and astute to accept the views and assumptions and emotions of coalition-lobby groups without scientific, or scientific-based considerations of their consequences. The 2009 review of the provincial land use policies,

section 4(1) of The Planning Act deals with area 4, natural lands, renewable resources, heritage and recreation, speaks of goals and policies that protect and sustain renewable resources, such as

52 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 forestry, through sound management, harvesting practices and co-existence to protect everyone's interests. There is not any indication or attempt to protect parks from other uses such as gas, oil, mines, hydro-electric or logging without ensuring a land base that has a common sense, long-term balanced approach between development and conservation. Prohibiting logging in provincial parks in accordance with

section 15.1 of The Forest Amendment Act is a blatant contradiction of The Planning Act, provincial land use policies of

section 4. Withdrawing timber cutting rights from the parks and asking these same stakeholders to only participate in damage control in counter–is counter- productive, and

whereas, a forest management plan exercising a harvest that could assist in control of the identified disasters would be a positive approach. Now I ask you, would it not be better to develop a forest management plan for each provincial park, on individual unique issues that works to constructively address conservation and industry and the parks needs? I'll leave you with that question. Thank you. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Hovorka. Questions? Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much, Mr. Hovorka, for your presentation this evening, for being here tonight.

You mentioned one of the, your problems is the lack of public consultation that's taken place with respect to this, this bill. When was the first time that you heard about this legislation coming forward? * (20:00) Mr. Hovorka: I was informed by FIAM that this was, this was coming forward. I was concerned, also, because of the fact that in the land planning, they've had three, minimum of three, hearings in the province on the review of The Planning Act, regarding land use planning, that is. And it'd only seem appropriate that this type of communication should have existed as well. Mr.

Struthers: Thank you very much, Marvin, for your presentation. I want to follow-up on just the one, one thing that you, that you pointed out here. Not so much to follow-up with you but to follow-up with my staff to make sure that we've got it right, in terms of the, the

section that, that–where we maintain our authority to, to go into a park and deal with it whether it's a blow-down or a pest infestation of some kind. I'll follow-up to make sure that we've covered our bases on that. I was concerned to, to read that in your, in your presentation so I'll double-check that. Thank you very much. Mr.

Lamoureux: You indicated, and I think probably fairly accurately, that it's politically incorrect now to cut a tree in a, in a provincial park, and then you make referenc e to science, and I think that maybe there is something that I'm missing here, but is there scientifical evid ence on either side of the issue whether it is good or bad, to do–to have trees cut down in, in provincial parks? Are you aware of any scientifical reports on either side? Mr.

Hovorka: Yes, there–the, the point that is being made there is that, you know, to maintain a healthy forest, wherever that fore st may be, whether it be parks or outside the parks, we have a obligation, I believe, as a government of the day to see that the forest is properly managed and harvested, if that be the case, if it need be.

And in the case of the, you know, the term "clearcutting," that is used so, so often and there's actually scientific, you know, evidence that if you're dealing with a aspen hardwood type of wood, for example, that the only way to get a regeneration, proper regeneration, because there's no planting involved in that type of operation, that it is to be clear-cut so that your soils, for example, get heated properly, so that your sappers from the roots system are able to reforestate very quickly, which they do.

But when someone sees a forest for the first time cleared, cleared of trees, they immediately aware of that where they happen to be, parks or outside the parks. They, they seem to be very disturbed about that but, in reality, it is the only to have regeneration take place, and it does take place very vigorously. And within a two-year period, you won't find a man's footprint in that particular area using machinery, whatever you may happen to use to harvest. Mr. Lamoureux: So, then, it's safe to say, then, you personally believe that this bill is to the detriment of the, our forests in our parks. Mr. Hovorka: Yes.

In the parks situation, I mean, we're, we're, yes, we're speaking about the fact that there should be harvesting in the parks, and, but, I mean, again, management is very important, and that

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 53 has taken place in the past.

During the '80s, due to the fact that the FML 20 and 23 were under stress conditions as far as softwood usage was concerned, we had, we were, we were allowed to have volume of wood, softwoods, transferred into the Whiteshell to offset that, that stress that was being placed on the forests of the eastern region, and when they saw to it that the–this was operated for about a period of 10 years, we saw that they felt that the balance was back in the main, in the forest areas of the eastern region, we were transferred out of the park with that volume.

That was not–that was quota that was held outside of the region as in FML 20 and 22 for example. During that period, it was taken into the–a percentage of it was put into the parks. We harvested there. We operated under the conditions that were in the parks and then moved on, but management was there on behalf of both the conservation side and the industry, and it, it worked very well. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: The time for this presentation has expired. Thank you, sir. Mr. Hovorka: Thank you. Thank you for your time. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Call Mr. Scott Spicer, CAO, R.M. of Whitemouth. Mr.

Spicer, sir, do you have any written copies of your presentation? Mr. Scott Spicer (Rural Municipality of Whitemouth): I do. Mr. Vice-Chairperson: You do. The Clerk's assistants will distribute them. You may begin when you're ready, sir. Mr. Spicer: The Rural Municipality of Whitemouth appreciates the opportunity to convey their views on Bill 3, The Forest Amendment Act. The Rural Municipality of Whitemouth is presenting in opposition to Bill 3 in its present form for the following reasons: Passing of this act will give a negative impact on the economy of the R.M. of Whitemouth as well as eastern Manitoba.

Two business operations in the R.M. will be affected. One business employs 13 full-time positions and 10 contract positions. The second business employs 40 full-time positions and 10 seasonal positions. The operators are fourth generation loggers, been there for four generations. The act, if passed in present form, will change the viability of these operators by requiring longer travel, trees that will be allocated to them will be smaller. There is a concern that quota allocations will not be available after a five-year period because of lack of trees.

The R.M. is concerned that operators will either discontinue their operations or move to where the new tree allocations are. Let us assume that each one of the full-time jobs alone makes about $40,000 per year. That would constitute a two, $2,120,000 leaving the local economy every year. In a municipality of 480 people this is a very big hit to the R.M. of Whitemouth. Secondly, passing of this act will have a negative effect on municipal roads.

With the loggers leaving a more concentrated area of trees and having to travel to smaller and more spread out areas, municipal roads will bear the brunt of more, heavier traffic. This will increase the burden of repairing roads on the local tax base. The passing of the act will result in mature trees staying in parks and other areas elevating the level for fires or the fuel for fi res. This is an issue as cottagers will have a larger fire threat to their cottages.

The Province will have to ensure adequate protection and thus forestry will have to have more resources to fight larger fires that are harder con–to control because there's more fuel there. No. 4. Parks branch is now managing the forest in parks and Forestry branch manages forests outside of parks. It is our understanding that Parks branch does not have the expertise, have this expertise, thus even if loggers are allowed in parks to reduce fire threat and disease reduction the expertise is not there to accomplish this task correctly. No. 5.

Passing of the act in its present form does not allow logging in parks and will allow the minister to reduce the amount of forest logged outside of parks, thus this is another viability concern for operations. No. 6. Most importantly, Bill 3 does not support environmental stewardship. Longer hauls on trucks adds to carbon footprint. Leaving mature trees adds, adds carbon to the atmosphere. Younger trees remove carbon from the atmo sphere. Wildlife also like to forage on younger trees.

To summarize, the R.M. of Whitemouth objects to the passage of Bill 3 of The Forest Amendment Act for the following reasons: the impact on the economy; the impact on road networks; forest fire concerns; Parks branch managing provincial forests;

54 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 2, 2009 impact on viability of the logging industry; and impact on the environment and wildlife. Thank you for your consideration. * (20:10) Mr. Vice-Chairperson: Thank you, Mr. Spicer. Questions? Mrs. Stefanson: Thank you very much for your presentation as well this evening.

And, coming from a rural municipality, I'm wondering if you could indicate if there was any consultation with your organization prior to this coming, coming forward, this legislation, if there was any discussions with re spect to impa–impact in particular that this could have on your muni–your rural municipality. Mr. Spicer: To begin with, we sent a letter to Minister Struthers and he did respond, and we also had a conference call with him. And it was a very frank discussion. We got a lotta information from him.

And, also, in his letter, he suggested that we meet with the regional forester, so we did also do that. So we have had consultation. I guess we're no– just not convinced. Mrs. Stefanson: Did that–did your phone call or, or letter to the minister, was that prompted after the legislation was introduced or, or brought forward, or was that done prior to the legislation coming forward so that the consultation process would actually provide you with some input into the legislation before it came forward? Mr. Spicer: I don't know if I can correctly answer that question.

I went away on holidays and came back, and this was on my desk. But it started January 9th-ish and I believe we got our letter back from the minister on January 28th, so I believe first reading had already happened. Mr. Lamoureux: In your

summary, on the second page, you indicate to summarize, and point No. 6, the impact on the environment and wildlife, is it fair to say you're referring to it as being a negative impact on the environment and the wildlife, this bill? Madam Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Spicer: Well, I think what you've been hearing tonight, and I will reiterate, is, is that mature trees do not help the environment, young trees do. So, if you are allowed to deal with the mature, mature trees: No. 1, you don't have a fire threat; No. 2, you don't have a blow-down issue; and No. 3, you have younger trees that are able to come back.

I drove down a municipal road last week and went by a piece of land that Mr. Kurian had cut the trees on three years ago, and the trees were four or five feet high already. Like the trees do not take a long time to come back, and we used to have–and there's actually still a moose draw in the Whiteshell area. I have a councillor that was drawn, went out and couldn't find one, and moose like new young growth. So that should tell you something right there. Mr. Struthers: Yeah, thank you ve ry much, Scott, for your presentation and, and your advice on January 9th through the 28th, as you, as you point out.

I, I–in, in your presentation the one thing I do want to, I do want to ad dress–it's just a statement rather than a question–your concern about the Forestry branch and Parks branch making decisions. When, when we make decisions it's, it–in our department it's on a regional integrated model.

All of those folks would get together to, to talk about the plans that–whether it's a, a plan that's brought forward by a, a Tembec or a Tolko or a, or an L-P or quota holders, we, we have a process that is–that, that makes sure that Parks and, and Forestry and all of the people concerned, and even in other departments at times are, are, are at the table for those, for those kinds of discussions. So I don't want you to, to think that it would fall between the cracks somewhere.

I also–oh, I also just want to commend you for standing up for your community and being concerned about the impact that decisions that we make here have on your rural community. I admire that. I want you to know that we, we, we try every way and work with the companies involved to make sure that, that that is minimized and, and taken into account before we make these decisions. So thanks for your presesion–presentation tonight. Madam Chairperson: Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Spicer: Thank you. Madam Chairperson: I will now call on Mary Granskou, Canadian Boreal Initiative .

Do you have some materials for us to distribute? Ms. Mary Granskou (Canadian Boreal Initiative): I'm very sorry, I do not.

June 2, 2009 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 55 Madam Chairperson: Please commence your presentation. Ms. Granskou: Good evening, Madam Chair, Vice- Chair and members of the committee. I'm delighted to be here tonight to present on Bill 3, but largely what we're looking at is the question that many other witnesses have discussed as well, in terms of the discontinue of logging in provincial parks in Manitoba. And just before I start, I want to just make a few comments to put it in context about the work of our organization because it's relevant to what you're doing here.

The Canadian Boreal Initiative, of course, is for–is focussed on our northern region, particularly our northern forests, carbon-rich peat lands, wetlands, the wildlife and the communities that live in those areas. There are over 600 Aboriginal communities across our northern boreal and many other communities that depend on both the resources and the services that these regions provide. We were founded about five years ago by leading First Nations, resource companies and conservation organizations who decided it was time to stop fighting and start collabo

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	39-3-la3
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	39th 3rd hansardpdf la3.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	6a14d0d47170dbe1547c4a72beb8b51d95b42dde

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).