Manitoba Hansard — Sitting 43 (37th Legislature, 3rd Session)

37-3-43

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session- Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative .Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PR�OCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LII No. 43 - 1:30 p.m., Wednesday, June 5, 2002 ISSN 0542-5492

Member AGLUGUB, Cris ALLAN, Nancy ASHTON, Steve, Hon. ASPER, Linda BARRETT, Becky, Hon. CALDWELL, Drew, Hon. CERILLI, Marianne CHOMIAK, Dave, Hon. CUMMINGS, Glen DACQUA Y, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HA WRANIK, Gerald HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWA Y, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEV AKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack ROBINSON, Eric, Hon. ROCAN, Denis RONDEAU, Jim SALE, Tim, Hon. SANTOS, Conrad SCHELLENBERG, Harry SCHULER, Ron SELINGER, Greg, Hon. SMITH, Joy SMITH, Scott, Hon. STEFANSON, Heather STRUTHERS, Stan TWEED, Mervin WOWCHUK, Rosann, Hon. MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thirty-Seventh Legislature Constituency The Maples St. Vital Thompson Riel Inkster Brandon East Radisson Kildonan Ste.

Rose Seine River Russell Selkirk Concordia Charleswood Pembina Lakeside Portage Ia Prairie Wolseley River Heights Minnedosa Lac du Bonnet Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La V erendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfield Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Ross mere Springfield St. Boniface Fort Garry Brandon West Tuxedo Dauphin-Roblin Turtle Mountain Swan River Political Affiliation N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C.

N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. Lib. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. P.C. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

2243 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Wednesday, June 5, 2002 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Ron Lemieux (Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism): I am pleased to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review for the 2002-2003 Departmental Estimates for the Department of Culture, Herit age and Touri sm. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bili 33-The Private Vocational Institutions Act Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Tourism (Mr. Lemieux), that leave be given to intr oduce Bill 33, The Private Vocational Institutions Act;

Loi sur les etablissem ents d'enseignement prof essionnel priv es, and that the same be now received and read a first time. His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, hav ing been advised of the contents of the bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table the Lieutenant-Governor's message. Motion presented. Ms. McGifford: Today I am pleased to introduce The Private Vocational Institutions Act, which will replace The Private Vocational Schools Act. In doing so, it makes a number of changes affecting the providers of private vocational training and students attending those institutions.

Some of the new key areas are enhanced consumer protection, a strengthened registration process and the creation of a private vocational institutions appeal board. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the public gallery where we have with us from David Livingstone School six Grades 3 to 6 students under the direction of Mrs. Carol Peterson. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Point Douglas (Mr. Hickes).

Also seated in the public gallery from Killarney School 52 Grade 9 students under the direction of Mrs. Lesley Johnston. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Tweed). Also in the public gallery we have from Maples Coll egiate Institute 21 Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Roberta Garton and Mr. Doug Smith. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for The Maples (Mr. Aglugub ). On behalf of all honourable members , I welcome you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Manitoba Hydro Rate Increase Mr.

Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a desperate government that has taken some desperate measures to balance last year's books. We know, and Manitobans know, the Doer government has a spending pro blem. They floated the idea of raiding the rainy day fund, and they knew Manitobans would not agree to it. They also tried- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. They also knew Manitobans would not accept them trying to amend balanced budget legislation. So

2244 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 in order to balance last year's books they went in and raided Manitoba Hydro to some $56 4 million. * (13:3 5) My question is to the Minister of Hydro: Does he stand by his Premier's (Mr. Doer) statement that Hydro rates will not go up and that Hydro rates in fact will be fr ozen? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): In the

preamble to the Member for Kirkfield Park's question, he indicated there had been a dramatic increase in spending. I just want to correct the record. In the Budget papers, pages B 10 and B 11 , the increase in program spending in our first three Budgets goes fr om $5.9 billion to $6.5 billion. The increase in the former government's spending between '95-96 and their last Budget is a billion dollars. Our Budget has gone up less than half of the members opposite.

When you look at the reduction in general purpose debt costs, which we have taken from $5 15 million down to $368 million, and down lower this year, we have made a very strong effort to manage the expenses of the Government of Manitoba in the interests of all Manitobans. I think the member opposite fr om Kirkf ield Park should get the record straight when he makes these kinds of statements. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, last year Manitoba Hydro produced documents that say they were going to be pro jecting increases of 6 percent over four years.

Now we have learned that Manitoba Hydro has amended those figures to pro jecting a 13% increase in hydro rates, a 13 % increase, double digits. Hydro officials have indicated these amended increases were done because the Doer government announced they would be raiding some $564 million from Manitoba Hydro in order to balance last year's books. Can the minister guarantee that Hydro's current pro jec tion of annual increases will not occur? Mr. Selinger: Once again, for accuracy of the record, Mr. Speaker, the member opposite uses a number that is entirely manufactured by himself.

He ignores the testimony sworn under oath as emphasized by the members opposite that says there will be no intere st expense if the dividend is taken out of export profits. If the member is going to put that kind of emphasis on officially sworn testimony, he should put equal weight on all of the evidence that is provided. As to the question of rate increases, in the '01 -02 integrated forecast-by the way, this is not an application for a rate increase; this is a pro jection-that would be last year at around this time, they pro jected a 13. 5% increase over 10 years.

In this spring's forecast they pro ject exactly the same rate increase, 13 .5 percent. In other words, the dividend has no impact on their pro jections. Mr. Murray: Prior to the raid of Manitoba Hydro by the Doer government to the tune of $564 million to balance last year's books, they saw the increase of 13 percent by the year 2008. Is the minister now saying today that his Government's decision to force Hydro to hand over $564 million will have no impact on Hydro's rates? Mr.

Selinger: Once again, the member is using a number that is contr adicted by the officially sworn evidence of the person who does the forecasts for Manitoba Hydro, so I would hope the member would put the weight on that evidence that he has in previous days and not try to have it both ways. * (1 3:40) The information I have just put on the record is that there is no change in the pro jected fore cast, and that is the information we stand by here today.

In previous years these forecasts, which are not rate applications for an increase, have always been put in there because Manitoba Hydro makes very prudent for ecasts, and those prudent forecasts have turned out not to be necessary. Rate applications have not proceeded. Let us also rememb er, Mr. Speaker, we have not taken a draw from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund during our first two Budgets. But in the last two budgets of the members opposite, they had a $18 5-million draw from the Fiscal Stabilization Fund in the budget year and also

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2245 overspent by $330 million. So they had a half a billion dollars of over spending. Manitoba Hydro Profits-Debt Reduction Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, in a desperate attempt to give the appearance of balancing their Budget, the government of the day has reached into Hydro's pockets and forced Hydro to spend $288 million in the form of a dividend to this Government. This Minister of Finance is now trying to convince Manitobans that paying $288 million will not have any impact on Manitoba Hydro. How ridiculous.

I would like to ask the minister if he will confirm that the $288 million that the Doer government is demanding from Manitoba Hydro could have otherwise been spent by Hydro on either capital expansion or debt reduction. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Well, I will simply confirm again the testimony put in at the Public Utilities Board, officially sworn testimony under oath, as the members so fr equently mention is that the answer would be there would be no additional interest expense.

I should remind the members opposite that Manitoba Hydro pays no corporate income tax in this province. It has a privileged position compared to other private-sector corporations who not only pay corporate income tax but they also pay dividends. For the record, I think it is also important to recognize that our equalization payment is reduced by the amount Manitoba Hydro could have paid as corporate income tax, whether they pay it or not.

So it is only a reasonable and appropriate measure to take to have a dividend for Manitoba Hydro , which puts it on a more equal footing with other Crown corporations across the country. I will answer further com ments on this in my next question. Borrowing Requirements Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): My supplementary; I will try and keep it simple for the minister. Will he at least admit to the people of Manitoba that as a result of the Doer government's demand that Hydro fork over $288 million to cover the Province's oversp ending, will he admit that Hydro will have to increase its borro wings? Simple. Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): I notice the members are shying away fr om the officially sworn testimony given at PUB, something that they used very aggressively just a couple of days ago, and that testimony indicates very clearly at page 2444 that if the dividends come out of export profits then there will be no interest expense. Now the member opposite has tried to draw a direct line between a Hydro dividend and increased borr owing costs.

Manitoba Hydro has to make a business case for capital pro jects, and when those capital pro jects will generate increased reliability, increased profitability, increased service improvements to Manitoba, they are a successf ul business case. Those kinds of capital pro jects are appropriately borrowed like any corporation in the country. Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister if he is then contr adicting the statement made this morning by the Premier (Mr. Doer) of this province, who said, and I quote: So there is no question taking a dividend out of profits affects the borr owing requireme nts.

Is he contr adicting that statement simply because he knows full well rates are on the rise? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, the previous answer I gave is exactly consistent with what the Premier said on CJOB this morning. He indicated very clearly that capital pro jects have to be justif ied on their own basis and if they are a justifiable, positive investment in Manitoba Hydro which will generate more benefits, then they are legitimate objects for borrowing like any business case and any corporation when it comes down to borrowing.

Let us rememb er, Manitoba Hydro has the lowest rates in North America when it comes to the rates they charge their customers, rates that give us a tr emendous competitive advantage. We will continue to have the lowest rates in North America.

2246 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 Manitoba Hydro Rate Freeze Mrs. Bonnie Mitchelson (River East): Mr. Speaker, as a result of the Doer government' s demanding that Hydro turn over millions, hundreds of millions of dollars, we know and Manitobans know that rates will go up. But the minister seems to believe otherwi se. Will the Minister of Hydro guarantee today that rates will not go up once Hydro has handed over the $288 million that he has demanded fr om them to satisfy his excessive spending habits? * (13: 45) Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, I have read into the record the facts, which are available to everyb ody through the Budget text, on how our spending has gone up less than half than the members opposite through the same period of time. We have the third lowest per capita expenditures in the country, something the members opposite should acknowledge. Now on the rates question. In their integrated forecast for the year '99-00, Hydro proj ected a rate increase of 2 percent, the actual increase was zero.

In the year 2000-200 1, they had a pro jected rate increase of 2 percent, the actual increase was zero. In the year 200 1-2002, they had a pro jected rate increase of 0.5 percent, the actual increase was zero. They have a pro jected increase of a 0.5 percent in '02-03 and there has been none to date. We can see that the forecasts that Manitoba Hydro make are very prudent, and so far we have been able to exceed them in every year. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.

Speaker, my supple mentary question to the Minister of Hydro is: Will he confirm that Hydro has been forced to state that a rate increase will not happen as a result of the transf er payment because of a directive issued by him and his Government? Mr. Selinger: There is absolutely no question the event the member conjectures happened. There is no way that happened. But I will give another validator on the rates. Mr.

John Osler, who is a consultant for the Manitoba Industrial Power Users Group, in testimony in front of the Public Utilities Board, officially sworn testimo ny, under oath, as the members are so often glad to repeat, has indicated that Hydro stated that the $288- million additional charge should result in no changes to rates. And we agree. Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple and a very direct question for the Minister of Hydro. Did this minister order Manitoba Hydro to fr eeze rates? Mr. Selinge r: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not.

One thing I can say for sure is we are the Government that brought in legislation that will protect Hydro fr om being privatized. When it comes to Crown corporatio ns, it was the members opposite that prom ised they would never privatize the Manitoba Telephone System and then promptly went ahead and did. We do not make those kinds of promises and break them. We try to put accurate information on the record. Manitoba Hydro Rate Freeze Mr. Leonard Derkach (Russell): Well, Mr. Speaker, getting back to the issue at hand. The minister continues to contradict statements made by officials of Manitoba Hydro, under oath.

Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. On May 27, when asked about rate increases as a result of the $288 million, an official of Manitoba Hydro said on page 16 86 under oath, and I quote: It was a policy decision by the Government and announced as such, that there would be no changes to rates as a result of the special payments. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister to confirm, as stated under oath by a Hydro official, that Hydro is being asked to freeze rates prior to an election due to a directive issued by his Government. Hon.

Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely remarkable.

June 5, 2002 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2247 Yesterday, the Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen) got up and talked about double-digit increases. Today, the member opposite says we have directed them to have a rate freeze. It is remarkable. Which is the truth? * (13 :50) The truth is Manitoba Hydro makes its own pro jections and puts those in fr ont of the Public Utilities Board. Those pro jections are examined and reviewed by all the intere st groups and lobby groups that want to review them.

They have confirmed that, based on their independent analysis, they do not think this dividend payment will generate a rate increase. Mr. Derkach: I want to ask this Minister of Finance who is also the Minister responsible for Hydro why his offi cial said under sworn testimony, and I quote, and I will quote directly from the text: It was a policy decision by the Government and announced as such that there would be no changes to rates as a result of the special payments. Mr. Selinger: Mr.

Speaker, the members opposite will remember last year in this Legislature we brought in rate equalization legislation which actually decreased rates to all citizens living in rural and northern Manitob a. We have done better than members opposite ever did in their 12 years. We have reduced rates to Manitobans living in rural and northern Manitoba as a result of our rate equalization legislation, and that is of benefit to all of those Manitobans. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the minister will not answer the question.

I would like to ask him a supplementary question, and that is this: Can the minister explain why rates are being set at the Cabinet table or fr ozen at the Cabinet table prior to an election instead of allowing the Public Utilities Board to set rates as they should have the right to set? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, we have no intention of interf ering with those policies. I should just point out that- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Selinger: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I note the testimony fr om Ms.

Wray indicates on page 16 86: It would be consistent with our policy as well not to have rate increases above the rate of inflation. That is what they have put in their integrated fore cast. Those pro jections, we will see if they materialize, but as I have indicated on the record the pro jections they have put into their integrated forecast are pro jections based on very prudent assumptions. If those assumptions are exceeded then they do not make a rate application for further incre ases. Manitoba Hydro Rate Freeze Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Already today, Mr.

Speaker, we have the Minister of Finance contradicting his board at the Public Utilities Board. Ms. Carolyn Wray, when asked the question: And with the swing of $550 million, Manitoba Hydro still does not think that it has to revise its rate increases or decreases, Ms. Wray replied: It was a policy decision by the Government and announced as such that there would be no changes to rates as a result of the special payments. My question to the minister: Is he denying that his Government ordered Hydro to freeze rates? Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Hydro Act): Mr.

Speaker, if we were ordering Hydro to reduce rates, why would they have in their integrated forecast rate increases at 13. 5 percent over the next 10 years. They are putting forward what they think, based on prudent assumptions, their rate increases will be. We do not interf ere with that pr ocess. Mr. Tweed: I will put it a different way so the minister can perhaps understand the question. Is the minister telling Manitoba Hydro that they must fr eeze their rates today when in reality Manitoba Hydro is suggesting to the Public Utilities Board they do need a 2% increase over the next five years?

2248 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, Hydro, based on its best analysis and pro jections, puts its rate increase pro jections in front of the Manitoba Hydro Board. I have simply indicated that they have exceeded those assumptions in every year for the last five years and have, theref ore, not had to make an official rate application. We do not interfere in their pro jections. We simply report to the Legislature information that they have put on the public record. I did table yesterday in the House a letter fr om Mr.

Brennan which indicated we are not considering any rate increases as a result of the transfer payment. * (13:55) I have additionally indicated independent third-party testimony fr om significant stake holders in this event of Manitoba Hydro, the Manitoba Industrial Power User s Group , who represent some of the largest consumers of electricity in Manitoba, and they agree that they do not anticipate rate increases as a result of this dividend policy of the Government of Manitoba. Mr. Tweed: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Mr. Brennan's arm is pretty sore this morning.

My question for the minister is: Are the Minister of Finance, the Minister responsible for Hydro (Mr.S elinger), the Premier of Manitoba (Mr. Doer) and the NDP government keeping Hydro rates artificially low at the Cabinet table, ordering a fr eeze in Hydro rates until after the next election? Mr. Selinger: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is we are proud of the fact that Manitoba Hydro has among the lowest rates in Nor th America, if not the lowest rates in North America, at a time when they are making record profits off export sales. Record profits, lowest rates in Manitoba, a good place to do business.

True North Entertainment Complex Business Plan Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, in their first year, the NDP government purchased a frozen food facility for almost $25 million, and later an audit showed that it was valued at only $2 million. This year, the NDP government is financing its ongoing expend itures by requiring Manitoba Hydro to borrow hundreds of millions of dollars. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for River Heights has the floor. Mr.

Gerrard: Today we learned a new analysis of the True Nor th business plan suggests that the arena proposal is very risky from a business point of view. I ask the Deputy Premier to admit that her Government does not have a solid business plan for the Province and that her Government's efforts to provide public funding for the proposed True North arena appear to be based on a very questionable business plan. Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergov ernmental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member for River Heights for that question. I had assumed that the Member for River Heights was supporting the arena.

I am not sure where the assumptions are behind this question, but, nevert heless, I think the information that the member is basing his questions on is err oneous. I think that the master agreement, which is a public agreement on True North, is one that all three governments have entered into in good faith. It is an agreement which is good for downtown Winnipeg and good for Manitoba. Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary.

I ask the Deputy Premier to admit that it was a big mistake for her Government not to hold full public hearings on the arena proposal and to try to keep the details of the business plan secret fr om Manitoba citizens. Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, well, quite contrary to the assumption and assertions of the Member for River Heights, the master agreement is a public document. The terms of that agreement were ta bled in this House in June. The term sheet, rather, was tabled in this House. I believe that the member has read it, and the master agreement is public.

I understand that the member has not read it; otherw ise, I think he would be very clear about the role of government in this pro ject. It is a pro ject which, I repeat, is part of the revitalization of downtown Winnipeg. That, I assume, is something that is supported by all members of this House.

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2249 Mr. Gerrard: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Deputy Premier to admit that her Government is committed to the destruction of the Eaton's building while having only a very questionable and risky business plan for the new arena. * (14:00) Ms. Friesen: I can confirm that the Eaton's site is indeed the site of the new arena, an arena which I believe most Manitobans agree is an important change for downtown Winnipeg. The lights were going out in downtown Winnipeg under the previous govemment.

Three levels of govemment have stepped up with private sector proponents to create a new arena which will be part of that revitalization. Building Communities Initiative Update Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): My question is to the Minister of Intergovemmental Affairs. Since our Govemment became elected in 1999, we have made significant investments in neighbour hood revitalization. Could the minister inform my colleagues in the House today how the Building Communities initiative will make a difference in neighbourhoods throughout Winni peg? Hon.

Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergov ernmental Affairs): I would like to thank the member for that question. Building Com munities is, indeed, a very important program for Winnipeg. It is one that I would like to underline is cost shared with the City of Winnipeg on a 50- 50 basis. It is a $14-million program which will go to rebuild and assist in capital construction and housing issues in the shoulder neighbour hoods of Winnipeg.

It is one that is a very strong support for the kind of thing that this Govem ment has been able to do, I think, with great success in Neighbourhoods Alive! and that is a rebuilding and the reconstructing of an inner city of Winnipeg which was left devastated by the previous government. Soil Moisture Levels Southwest Manitoba Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, southwestem Manitoba is experiencing a drought. Fall crops have been plowed under, many dugouts are empty, pastures are brown, wells are running dry, and it is only early June.

Farmers and area residents need secure water supplies for livestock needs for this spring. Can the Minister of Conservation tell this House what mechanisms his department has undertaken to assess the soil moisture shortage in that region, and what are the findings from those surveys? Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conserv ation): There has been quite a bit of work going on with respect to trying to address the effects of the dry spell that we have been having and also forecasts that are being made.

There is a committee that has been struck to work towards developing a strategy that would address the effects of a drought, should we get it. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, this spell has been going on since last July. I guess my question to the Minister of Conservation is: Can he tell farmers and communities today in this House what contingency plan he has directed his department to initiate to deal with this drought situation? Mr. Lathlin: Let me assure the member across the way that we on this side of the House are also concemed about the negative impacts that drought would bring.

That is why we have been working in co-operation with the Department of Agriculture and Food in trying to come up with a strategy that would address how to manage the drought for this summer. Mr. Maguire: Mr. Speaker, I would like to further extend to the Minister of Conservation the request to tell this House if he has had any discussions with any of the federal departments and organizations, like PFRA for instance, that do have programs in place and equipment ready to go? Mr.

Lathlin: Yes, 1 can indicate to the member that in conjunction with the Department of Agriculture and Food discussions are ongoing with the federal government with respect to trying to address the drought situation in Manitoba. Chiropractic Care Coverage Reduction Mrs. Myrna Driedger (Charleswood): Mr. Speaker, more than 42 000 Manitobans are now

2250 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 up in arms over the massive cuts to chiropractic services made by the Doer government. I would like to ask the Minister of Health (Mr. Chomiak) to explain how he can justify these cuts when every dollar spent on chiropractic services saves our health care system $7. Hon. Tim Sale (Acting Minister of Health): At least we did not cut the number of visits from 15 to 12, which the previous government did. Secondly, we did reduce the co-payment from approximately $11 to approximately $8. This is a service that is not included under the Canada Health Act.

It is not an insured service. We are one of five provinces which provides this service, five do not. And the cut that is in place, if a person takes all 12 visits that they are entitled to, it is just around $40 a year. We had tough decisions to make in this Budget. We did not like making this decision. If the Canadian government funded the Canada Health and Social Transfer payment properly, we would not have had to make this kind of tough decision. Mrs.

Driedger: I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Health to explain how elderly people and people on social assistance are now supposed to be able to afford chiropractic care. How can they tum their backs on those needy people? Mr. Sale: There are all kinds of things that it would be nice if our citizens were able to enjoy if the Canadian government funded the health care system anything like it was funded in '94-95 before the draconian cuts to the Canada Health and Social Transfer. We did not like this kind of situation.

We did not enjoy facing the kind of cut that we were looking at in regard to the accounting error that we faced. We did not like the reality of the downturn in the economy. So difficult decisions were made in a number of areas. We did not enjoy that process. We did not cut the number of visits that were covered like the previous government did. Mrs. Driedger: I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Health today if he is prepared to do the right thing, listen to us and listen to over 42 000 Manitobans and reverse his wrong headed decision to cut chiropractic care . • Mr.

Sale : We listen to Manitobans very carefully. One of the things I would say to those Manitobans is that we are as concerned as they are about the state of our health care system. We invite the federal government to be a real partner in health care, to meet the 18% goal that was set by the premiers in their discussions with the First Minister, to fund the Canada Health and Social Transfer with a proper escalation formula, which was ended by the Mulroney government in 1990 and has not been restored by the current Chretien government in spite of the fact that they have been in power for seven years.

If we had a stable, predictable health funding formula we would not have to face the kinds of decisions that we had to make this year. I sympathize with Manitobans for the failure of the federal government to live up to its com mitment to fund health care properly. Animal Diseases Act Quarantine of Wildlife Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): The Minister of Agriculture has introduced a bill that gives greater powers to local authorities to deal with an outbreak of disease in livestock.

The Minister of Agriculture stated in the May 31 Win ni peg Free Press, and I quote: "We have the ability now to take steps to do quarantines, to restrict the movement of animals." Can the Minister of Agriculture tell this House if these legislative changes give the minister powers needed to quarantine diseased elk in the Riding Mountain National Park area in order to prevent them from coming into contact with domestic herds? * (14:10) Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr.

Speaker, we have indeed brought forward changes to The Animal Diseases Act that clarify the responsibilities and the powers that the Province has should there be an outbreak of disease, and this bill deals with domestic animals. Mr. Jack Penner: Given that the Minister of Agriculture said to the Winni peg Free Press on May 31, and I quote: "If you have an outbreak of

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2251 a disease and are not controlling that disease, then all of our animals are put at risk." Will the minister now tell this House whether she has given herself and her Government the authority under this act to put in quarantine the wildlife that is currently diseased and full of TB in the Riding Mountain area? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, when this Government came into power we recognized that there was a concern, a serious concern with respect to TB outbreaks and it could have a serious impact on the domestic herds.

That is why we put together a TB strategy, a committee put together with dollars, a committee put together consisting of the Department of Con servation, the Department of Agriculture and Food, CFIA, the Riding Mountain National Park committee, as well as the Manitoba Cattle Producers. The Manitoba Cattle Producers have clearly indicated their support for the Com prehensive Bovine TB Management Program that has been put in place by this Government in conjunction with the federal government. Mr. Jack Penner: Mr.

Speaker, will this minister tell this House what action she is going to take to ensure that the health of our largest industry, our cattle industry, is preserved in this province, and will she now take steps to eliminate TB disease in the Riding Mountain National area? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the member previously, we have put together a working group to address the issue of bovine TB and working towards eliminating disease, and we are supported by the Manitoba Cattle Producers who see this as a very serious issue, as do we. Hog Manure Odour Reduction Research Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, it has come to my attention that on a farm some 60 miles southeast of Winnipeg near Landmark, there has been an experiment underway for the last several weeks that has successfully taken all the odour out of hog manure. Can the Minister of Agriculture confirm that she is aware of that experiment? Has she personally visited this site or some of her senior officials, and can she confirm whether or not this is true? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question, and I am very aware of the project.

In fact, Government has contributed to this research project on eliminating odour from manure. Our staff has been at the site, and we have been making arrangements so members of our Government can visit it. But I can tell the member that it does not quite smell like raspberry jam just yet. Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I note that the project received a $50,000 research grant from a program that I initiated because- An Honourable ME!mber: Which you cut out. Mr. Enns: acknowledge that. Is the Government still supporting the waste management initiative that has provided the monies for this experiment?

Is the department still providing any support to this program? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, research is very important, particularly given the size of the livestock industry that we have in this province. We see it as a growing industry, but one that needs a lot of research. Yes, we still have money for research in these kinds of projects. Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, a final supplementary question.

In the event that they manage to remove all the obnoxious odour from the hog manure, would the minister consider making an old ex-Minister of Agriculture's day by inserting a bit of raspberry flavouring to the process, just making it that much more acceptable? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, we have a growing livestock industry. There will be many challenges. There is the need for doing research and developing different ways to handle manure, different ways of controlling the odour. The day that it should smell like raspberries, I will give big credit to the previous Minister of Agriculture. Mr.

Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

2252 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Plum Coulee Grain Elevator Mr. Jack Penner (Emer son): Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure today to rise to acknowledge the efforts and creativity of the people of Plum Coulee. They have succeeded in preserving a piece of their heritage by promising to convert the village grain elevator into a museum and a restaurant. Plum Coulee officially acquired the elevator from Agricore United earlier this month.

The structure stopped being used for its primary purpose because, like many other small Manitoba communities, it was no longer needed, as grain transportation companies are centralizing their operations to large facilities. This project is going forward, thanks in large part to a $600,000 donation from the Montreal-based Bronfman Foundation. The wife of Samuel Bronfman, one of Canada's wealthiest businessmen, was raised in Plum Coulee. The foundation felt it was important to help the village save its elevator. Mr.

Speaker, I find it very appropriate that Plum Coulee is commencing the project one year after its centennial celebration, being 101 years old. It certainly has a rich history that many are eager to learn more about through the future museum exhibits. The village has proven it has the spirit to last. Through this initiative, the residents are demonstrating the desire to see Plum Coulee continue to grow and to prosper. I believe this project will be a source of tremendous pride for the people of Plum Coulee and indeed all of Manitoba and the surrounding area.

I look forward to the excitement that will no doubt be generated in the village of Plum Coulee and all the people that will benefit from this project. Thank you very much. Black and Gold Society Ms. Nancy Allan (St. Vital): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to recognize a group of volunteers who do great work in my constituency. What is remarkable about this group is that these volunteers, who provide both youngsters and seniors with valuable opportunities for entertainment and fun, are high school students.

The Black and Gold Society is a group of 45 secondary school students from Dakota Colle giate who do an excellent job volunteering for our local community. For example, Mr. Speaker, in December the Black and Gold Society held a party at Dakota Collegiate for 70 young students from Victor Mager and Lavallee Schools. At this party they worked under the guidance of two school community liaison co-ordinators, Leslie Later and Linda Watson.

Through their efforts, the generous Black and Gold youth planned the event, budgeted for it, spent time setting up and decorating, volunteered their time for three hours and even took time to raise funds for its success. They raised those funds by selling Christmas trees in the parking lot at the school. The funds were matched by the Youth Connections, which in tum is supported by Shaw Cable. One of the goals of the Black and Gold Society is the desire to provide young adults with volunteer experience that they can use to develop leadership skills.

They have made other contributions, like a seniors evening which was held last fall, that I had the pleasure of attending with many citizens from St. Vital. Mr. Speaker, St. Vital is fortunate to have people like this participating in our communities. I would like to compliment the students of the Black and Gold Society on their capacity for organizing events that bridge the generation gap and provide opportunities for youth and seniors to have a great time together.

I am proud to see the members of the Black and Gold Society work so hard and show everyone the importance of giving something back to their community. * (14:20) Gord Peters Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to congratulate Mr. Gord Peters of Brandon on being named Manitoba Transportation Person of the Year for 2002 by the University of Manitoba Transport Institute. Mr. Peters received the

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2253 honour just before a luncheon attended by our Transportation critic and Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) and myself on June 3. Mr. Peters is the chief executive officer of Cando Contracting, headquartered in Brandon. This company was started in 1978 from meagre resources. Cando Contracting currently operates three short-line railways, including the Barrie Collingwood Railway, Central Manitoba Rail way Inc. and Athabasca Northern Railway Ltd., and hopefully, his fourth company will soon be running in the short line to Gimli.

Cando Contracting has been a leader in both Manitoba's transportation industry and in Manitoba's busi ness community at large. Other honours Mr. Peters has received include the 2000 Manitoba Entrepreneur of the Year, the 2000 Best in Business Award for Manitoba Business Magazine and the Brandon Chamber of Commerce's Business Person of the Year in 1999. Mr. Peters is also currently serving as the chairman of the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce.

On behalf of the members of the Progressive Conservative caucus, I would like to extend my congratulations to Gord Peters, his wife, Diane, and his shareholder-participating staff and employees of Cando Contracting on their tremendous success, and wish them all the best in their future endeavours. Aboriginal Festival Mr. Stan Struthers (Dauphin-R oblin): Mr.

Speaker, I want to stand here today and pay tribute to the Dauphin Friendship Centre, the West Region Tribal Council and all the volunteers and organizers of the First Annual Aboriginal Festival that was held up at the Selo Ukraina site south of Dauphin over the course of the weekend. I was very pleased to be joined by the Minister of Aboriginal and Northern Affairs (Mr. Robinson) on Saturday morning for the opening ceremonies. Mr.

Speaker, it is my hope, and I would hope all MLAs would join me in saying that not just should this be a first annual, but a second annual and a third annual and a fifth annual and tenth annual, on and on. It was such a success and such an important festival in our area and, I think, for the province of Manitoba. Special thanks have to go to Gisele Routheir, the executive director for the Dauphin Friendship Centre; Susie Secord, the president of the Dauphin Friendship Centre and president of the Manitoba Association of Friendship Centres; and all their volunteers.

Special thanks to Chief Morris Shannacappo of West Region Tribal Council for emceeing not only the opening ceremonies, but the powwow that took place Saturday afternoon. Friday night, C-Weed was the entertainment at a very successful dance, and, on Sunday, they had a square dance competition. I want to, though, say that, in particular, the highlight of the weekend was the powwow. "Powwow" is a word that means "he dreams." Mr. Speaker, to our everlasting shame in Canada, the powwow was prohibited. It was seen as a threat to our society, and only in more recent times has the powwow gained in popularity.

I want to quote from the program guide that I think sums it up best: The powwow is a living cultural expression of song, dance, and art that brings people together and, through the drum, reminds us of our connection to Mother Earth. Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is up. MPI Anti-Theft Device Discount Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a concern raised with me by one of my constituents in River Heights.

At the time of her purchase of a 2002 Chevy Tracker, Charlene Toset called the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation to find out how much of a discount she would receive on her insurance if she had an MPI-approved anti-theft device installed on her vehicle. She provided information on herself and was told by the Manitoba Public Insurance representative that she would receive a discount of about $60 a year or about 4.5 percent of a premium.

2254 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 However, after purchasing the vehicle and the insurance, Charlene Toset learned, to her shock, from a different Manitoba Public Insurance rep who was dealing with her, that she would only receive a discount of $22 a year. The difference in what Charlene was told initially at $60 per year and what she had received at $22 a year is $38 a year, a 63% shortfall. I speak today to bring this matter directly to the Legislature to hope that the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Mackintosh), who is responsible for the Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation, will apologize for the behaviour of the Crown corporation for which he is responsible, and also to bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Smith) so that his department can investigate the circumstances and the poor business practices which occurred in this instance. ORDERS OF THE DAY GOVERNMENT BUSINESS Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second reading on Bill 14.

DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bi11 14 -The Public Schools Modernization Act (Public Schools Act Amended) Mr. Speaker: Resume debate on second reading of Bill 14, The Public Schools Modernization Act (Public Schools Act Amended), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Minnedosa. Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): I am pleased to be able to speak on Bill 14 and look at some of the details of this bill. I note with interest, after informing the Government House Leader on Monday that I would be speaking today, the Minister of Education (Mr.

Caldwell) took it upon himself to issue a press release yesterday urging us to start speaking on this bill, and I suspect that he knew full well that we would be doing so. I also note that he really does not want to listen to much debate on it. He wants it to go directly to public hearings. Present circumstances do not permit him to take full advantage of the things I am going to say, and I would hope that the Minister of Education would be present in the House so that he could hear some of these comments that I am going to make. First of all, the bill is entitled The Public Schools Modernization Act.

When you read the title, you would get the impression that perhaps this modernization act is going to be some announcement about state-of-the-art curriculum that is being brought in or perhaps that it was going to be technology that was going to be made available in the schools of Manitoba. Perhaps it was going to be the fulfillment of that promise that every student would have an e-mail address.

It was with some disappointment that I read the modernization bill and find out that this was a very haphazard attempt to change school division boundaries and a very direct attack on school trustees in this province by scooping away many of the fundamental powers that school trustees have. I can tell you the trustees across this province are rather offended by this bill.

I will get into some of those details a little bit later, but I say to the minister and the Government: Your moral authority to arbitrarily change school division boundaries and the authority to take away from duly elected trustees, who were elected by the people of their school divisions-they are elected to make decisions at the local level. They are elected to set tax rates at the local level. These people are offended that the Minister of Education is now taking away more of their rights and putting within his jurisdiction powers that he has never had before.

I point that out because this Government, in terms of the amount, the percentage they pay for operating public schools, that percentage is less today than it was during the time we were in government. * (14:30) Teachers and trustees are asking this Government to contribute a higher percentage of funding for the operation of public schools. If you listen to the Premier and the Minister of Education and ministers opposite, you would think that they had made some large contribution

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2255 to public education in terms of the percentage of dollars they give to operating expenses. I would call members' attention to a bar graph put in the Manitoba Teacher this spring. It shows in the graph that, at one time, governments of Manitoba contributed more than 80 percent of the operating funds. Today, and the Deputy Premier (Ms. Friesen) should know this, her Government contributes 59.2 percent of the operating costs of school divisions. This graph, I think, is very instructional.

I would urge members of the Government to have a look at it, particularly the Deputy Premier, who was once the Education critic and had lots to say about school funding and had lots to say about school division boundaries. I would think she would be embarrassed to know that this Government today is contributing the lowest amount, the lowest percentage of the operating funds of school divisions at 59.2 percent. That was confirmed in a letter written by the Minister of Education (Mr.

Caldwell) April 19 of this year, where he acknowledged that the provincial contribution in terms of percentages to the operating of school divisions is 59.2 percent, the lowest it has ever been. While they are making this paltry contribution to school divisions, they are, by this bill, attempting to take away more of the authority and more of the powers of duly elected trustees. I think members opposite should be ashamed of themselves. This is an attack on trustees under the guise of modernizing the public education system, truly a misnomer. Now, Mr.

Speaker, members opposite should not be surprised that they are getting this kind of reaction from the public and from trustees because this Government today had said consistently that they believe in voluntary amalgamation. They said it when they were in opposition. In fact, they said it when they were in government. The Minister of Education, after his appointment to that post, in an interview with the Russell Banner indicated that they will not force amalgamations.

In fact, there was a rather large headline in the Russell Banner that the minister had been in Russell meeting with school division officials and said: We will not force amalgamation. That was said throughout the province by many members of the Government, and then suddenly they had a change of policy where now they are going to force these amalgamations and not even do it well. I think that is what is most offensive to Manitobans that the plan that they came up with is so, so unacceptable to Manitobans.

The Minister of Education- I hope that he is able to hear this and perhaps join us-has as his deputy, Benjamin Levin, PhD, associate professor. Mr. Levin did appear before the Norrie Boundary Commission and, I think, was one of the more influential people that came before the Norrie Boundary Commission. He stated a number of times that changing boundaries will neither save significant amounts of money nor improve students' learning experience but will involve substantial costs in time and energy.

This is the Deputy Minister of Education of the province of Manitoba, the man whose office is next to the Minister of Education, the man who draws up the policy in Education for this Government, the man who is influential-! perhaps should not blame him-for putting words in the mouth of the Minister of Education because while he does need the help, nobody should have to take responsibility for that. Mr. Conrad Santos, Deputy Speaker, in the Chair But Mr.

Levin, in a document that was presented on March 15, 1994, says that changing boundaries will neither save significant amounts of money nor improve students' learning experience but will involve substantial cost in time and energy. He had it right. Now this Minister of Education is trying to tell us that there is going to be a saving of $10 million. He has never, ever tried to quantify that. Later on I will get into some of the costs of amalgamation. But the man who today is his deputy knew this f1ve, six, eight years ago. I understand that he has repeated this recently to school boards.

So where is the Minister of Education getting his advice? Mr. Levin goes on to say: The concept of savings through economies of scale is an old one in education. However we believe there are good reasons for rejecting this concept. Now,

2256 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 certainly, the minister has the right to override his deputy, to ignore his deputy and not accept the advice of his deputy, but this is a man who has his doctorate in education, a man who has been hired to give advice to the minister, and he says very clearly throughout this that consolidation could be costly. He said there are significant costs associated with changing school division boundaries, and later on, I will get into some of the detail of that, but, again, this is the Deputy Minister of Education in this province. He has said it over and over again.

This Government has rejected good advice from the Deputy Minister of Education. I am surprised that they would do this. I am pleased that the Deputy Premier is here, because in 1996 she put out a press release. In very, very bold language she says, boundary revisions will not save money, Friesen. She had it right in those days. I have gone through Hansard. Many of her remarks that she made in debate on this bill, I give her credit for being very thorough, that she read through the Norrie report, she read through the people who presented from small communities, and she trashed the Norrie report.

She trashed the idea that this was going to save nioney. I think that she was right then. I think Mr. Levin was right then. I am surprised that she has not had more influence on the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell). She goes on in some detail to describe what amalgamation was going to do to small communities. You know, she was right, and she is being proven right. She talks about the lack of evidence that the Norrie Commission had that was going to show us that they could save money. As a result she put out this press release. I am pleased that she still stands by it today.

I thought maybe she had a little more influence in Cabinet, but obviously the Minister of Education and other Cabinet ministers have overruled her. She goes into great detail to talk about reading about villages like Cartwright and divisions like Pelly Trail and Turtle Mountain. These are proud comm unities who took the time to present to the Norrie Commission and put this evidence on the record. Of course what has been lacking here is a process. This minister did not follow his own act and have any consultation or get any advice from Manitobans, from trustees, from anybody.

In fact, in the middle of the night, probably on a weekend he took out his crayon and started drawing lines on the map. I think he fell asleep at his desk that night because he did not finish the job. It was sort of a partial amalgam ation. I can tell you that people are questioning this across the province. Why were some areas left out? Why did some divisions escape the scrutiny of this minister when he had his crayon out and was making these changes?

I am surprised that the Deputy Premier would not have looked more closely at these drawings, would not have seen the lack of depth and the lack of knowledge and the lack of preparation before this was foisted on Manitobans. The Deputy Premier goes on to talk about finding the best practices and how important this was and that this was more important than changing boundaries. She talks about the lack of savings, the lack of evidence, and the fact that this did not really, really consider the children in the classroom.

So, again, why are Manitobans surprised by this Government, this autocratic way of forcing these amalgamations? It can be found in the speeches of the Member for W olseley (Ms. Friesen), the Deputy Premier. I can tell you that she had many things right then that we would agree with. I know her and the minister of the day had a pretty good relationship and they agreed on many things and chose to disagree on a few. In fact, when she put out that press release, I thought, good for her. She understands the situation. She understands the cost analysis of this.

I am sorry that she will not be here to hear the rest of my remar ks. * (14:40) There were many other members opposite who spoke about the Boundary Commission at that time and what they saw as the right way to go. Certainly they were always in favour of consultation. In fact, the Member for Wolseley, even after the Norrie Commission had met for almost a year, said, you know, there was not enough consultation. There should have been more consultation. In fact, the contrast is, today

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2257 there was zero consultation. Nobody went out and talked to school divisions. Nobody went out and talked to the public. Nobody talked to teachers. This was done in the minister's office without a lot of concern for people. Now, the Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell) wrote a number of letters. I already mentioned that he was in Russell in the fall of 1999 and that he said there would be no forced amalgamations. He wrote a letter to, what he calls, stakeholders in July of 2000.

He said: My preference would be to continue the existing voluntary process of amalgamation over the next 12 months. He thought that this was the way to go, and I could tell you that we agree with that. He continued this in September of 2000, where he is suggesting that voluntary amalgam ations is the way to go. At this time, he even set out some criteria, criteria that he seems to have forgotten about along the way. I can tell you that I asked him on a number of occasions, the trustees have asked him: What criteria did you use when you drew these boundaries?

He sort of shrugged his shoulders and sort of said, well, trustees are supposed to consult amongst themselves, and this criteria, well, we do not have any criteria. He did lay it out at one time, and he just, perhaps, forgot about it. He talked, particularly, about current and projected enrolments in rural Manitoba. He put a number out there, but that number was 2000 students. In fact, in that same letter, he listed the school divisions by name and number and by enrolment. I will come back to this a little later. But there were many divisions.

There were many trustees and many people who took that letter and that advice as being the gospel. That was one of the criteria. Well, that criteria was not met in any way, shape or form when he did the final boundaries. He did not listen to the people. He did not look at the criteria. He did not look at the numbers. As I say, I will come back to that a little later. As late as January of 2001, he talks about him and the Premier being genuinely committed to a voluntary process in these deliberations.

So, all through the latter part of 1999, all of the year 2000 and into the year 2001, all he was talking about was voluntary amalgamations, and people agreed with that. We agreed with that, and trustees agreed with that, that this was the way to go. We thought that was the way this Government wanted to move on this particular ISSUe. The last piece of evidence that I will use is when the Premier of Manitoba spoke to the trustees, and this was in March of 2001. Of course, trustees were very much interested in this issue of amalgamation.

Those of us who watched the Premier perform in this House, as a member of the Opposition and now as the Premier, if you close your eyes, you can almost visualize the Premier addressing 250 or 300 trustees at their annual meeting. The whole question of amalgamation was on their minds. He said: There will be no forced amalgam ations; that is not the Manitoba way. This comment was made at their convention in March of 2001, in front of 300 trustees at an annual meeting.

As I say to you, those of us who have grown to know the slick manner of the Premier can just imagine him saying this: There will be no forced amalgamations; it is not the Manitoba way. You know, he received applause for that, and trustees went back to their school divisions and informed the rest of the board. They informed their superintendents. They informed their public. The Premier of Manitoba has stated that there will be no forced amalgamations because it is not the Manitoba way.

So, if members opposite are surprised, they have a right to be surprised, because they believe the First Minister when he speaks and, I think, are shocked by the fact that he has now backtracked on that. Mr. Deputy Speaker, the question is: What was the process that was followed? The current legislation is very straightforward. It says that the minister may, by regulation, add territory to or withdraw territory from any school division or school district established under the act. He may amalgamate any t\vo or more school divisions or school districts established under this act.

In other words, he does not need a bill in the Legislature to consummate an amalgamation. He has the authority to do that. In fact, we have seen some amalgamations over the last few years in

2258 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 Prairie Spirit and with the division of Norwood joining St. Boniface. The legislation allows that to happen. Now there is one additional proviso. There is a prerequisite to offering boundaries by the minist er: The minister shall not exercise any of the powers conferred by subsection ( 1) except after a review by and receipt of a recom mendation from the review commission. That is the missing piece. This minister, when he started drawing boundaries, thought he had the authority to do it.

He thought he had the authority to make these changes, that he did not need to consult with people, he did not need to consult with Manitobans, he did not need to consult with trustees. He could just draw those boundaries and that would be it. In fact, I called this to his attention not too long ago, and he says he put the onus for consultation on school divisions in the fall of 1999. Does the minister have the right not to consult when he makes changes? Does he have the right to put this onus on trustees? He thought he did, but he found out that he was wrong then, and as a result, he has to bring in a bill.

An Honourable Member: · Where IS the minister? Mr. Gilleshammer: Well, I am hoping that the minister is interested in this initiative. I hope that he is interested in comments that members on this side have to make. I would hope that he would be able to even talk to his deputy who is so much against this initiative. I tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the reason we have a bill before us today is that this minister refused to consult with the public. He refused to consult with trustees. He thought he had the power to move ahead with changes, and the fact of the matter is he does not.

Instead of admitting that, he goes on and is very autocratic towards school board members and school divisions. He has taken a very heavy-handed approach to school divisions. In fact, never before in my memory has a Minister of Education fired a school board. I do not recall before where two different divisions are prepared to go to court against this minister over the issue of boundaries. This is a result of a lack of consultation on behalf of this minister and this Government and the Premier (Mr. Doer) not living up to his word when he said there would be no forced amalgamations, it is not the Manitoba way.

So the process has been flawed. In fact, the trustees' association recently came out with a statement. The trustees of Manitoba are saying the amalgamation process has been flawed from the outset. There were no public consultations as required by The Public Schools Act. There was a six-month time lag between the amalgamation announcement and enabling legislation, and the regulations preceded legislation. Trustees under stand this very well. They feel rather badly about this, and I would say they feel rather abused by this. * (14:50) I would ask that the minister take another look at this act.

In fact, I asked him in the House in December of 2001, and I said : What were the criteria for these changes? Did the criteria have anything to do with the size of a school division? He said no. Did the criteria have anything to do with the number of students in the school division? The minister said no. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, this is unbelievable. This is a minister who had sent out a letter telling rural school divisions that the criteria should be that they have at least 2000 students.

When he was asked about the criteria, he stumbled and fumbled and bumbled his way through this, and I can tell you that he did not use any criteria in drawing these boundaries, other than perhaps some political criteria. Well, people are trying to figure out the criteria. Some maps have been produced by the department, and the criteria seemed to have been followed in Pelly Trail, Birdtail River, where now they will have over 2000 students. It was followed in Souris Valley and Antler River, where they will now have over 2000 students. Why was it not applied to Turtle Mountain?

Why was it not applied to Turtle River? The Minister of Agriculture (Ms. Wowchuk) will know Turtle River well, because I think it is an area that she travels through from time to time. Turtle River is a school division of about 700 students. It is locked between Lake Manitoba on one side, the national park on the other side and other school divisions north and south, 700 students. If the minister lived up to the criteria

June 5, 2002 LEGISL ATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2259 that he put in that letter, surely it would have been considered for amalgamation. In fact, and I will maybe get into that later, too, I remember the reeve from Alonsa saying: What is going on here? We have a school division of 700 or 800 students, and it was not part of this amalgamation plan. Where were the criteria, and where was the minister's head when he made these changes? I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture sitting at the Cabinet table, knowing Turtle River School Division very well, would not have spoken up and said, listen, Mr.

Minister of Education (Mr. Caldwell), this must meet the criteria. In fact, she and the Member for Dauphin (Mr. Struthers) were busy rejigging the Duck Mountain School Division, because it was a mess, too, after the minister's announcement. It was split three ways, and they sent a team of ministers in there to try and find a solution. To their credit, they made a bad situation better, but that bad situation exists other places. You know, if the Minister of Agriculture is going to take some pride in doing that, maybe she would go back to Cabinet and say, listen, we have got to look at some other areas, too.

The area of the Interlake, where there are three school divisions, does not seem to be on the radar screen of the Minister of Education or the Government when it comes to amalgamation. The school divisions of Western and Garden Valley in southern Manitoba, who have lots of students, a good tax base, very small area and, in fact, if geographic area was one of his criteria and considerations, certainly he overlooked it in that area.

Then there is the city of Winnipeg, and the minister is fond of using the term "symmetry." If he would look at the Norrie Commission map, where four school divisions were created, there indeed was some symmetry to that, and I am surprised, with his unusual interest in that term, that he would not look for some symmet ry in the Winnipeg school divisions. He amalgamates Assiniboine South and Fort Garry. He amalgamates St. Vital and St. Boniface.

He takes part of Transcona-S pringfield and adds it to the second-largest school division in the province, River East. [in terjection} Well, it is a better division since you left. Why did he not look at Seven Oaks? I would ask you why did he not look at the division of Seven Oaks. Now, we see in the paper today, of course, that Seven Oaks trustees have a very, very special relationship with the Premier and the Minister of Education. If funding was inadequate for Seven Oaks, the board says we just call up the Premier (Mr. Doer) and the minister, and summon them over, and we get more money, almost $1 million more.

So is there a reason why Seven Oaks was not part of this amalgamation? Well, they do have a special relationship with the Premier and the minister, and I suppose it was documented in the paper today. I suppose they said, well, we are quite fine on our own, and they are fine. They got $1 million more through this special relationship with the minister and the Premier. St. James-Assiniboia, again, is a division that has a smaller enrolment than River East, and it was not amalgam ated.

I suspect that it was through the hard work of two MLAs who were hanging on to their seats there by their fingernails and who probably will not be with us after the next election. They decided that they would not amalg amate the St. James-Assiniboia. So there is a distinct lack of symmetry in the decisions that the Minister of Education made and Manitobans notice that, trustees notice that. Well, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I would like to just talk about what some of the members of the public are saying about this.

The Assiniboine South Council of Presidents is extremely upset that they were not given the opportunity to be involved in this decision-making process. Their trust in the democratic process has been eroded. Mr. Caldwell, you have stated repeatedly in a variety of forums that you value this organ ization and its way of doing business. They felt that they had an opportunity to make a contribution, but the minister would not listen to them. Rather than have a process where you listen to people, he went ahead without it.

The Council of Presidents in that area feels that their ability to preserve their unique way of working with the board and the community has

2260 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 been destroyed. These are volunteers within the conununity. The minister has talked about various outcomes, about better education and saving money. The board in Assiniboine South says they find it difficult to envision the outcomes of which you speak. They are challenging the minister. They are saying what you have said to us does not make sense. Your process does not make sense, and we are offended by it.

There are many, many people who have written letters to the Premier and the minister and have registered their discontent with the process and with the outcome that has been presented by this Government. There are people from the Rural Municipality of Alonsa, I believe it was the reeve who wrote and asked the question, who says: With much larger divisions amalgamating across the province, leaving a small division such as Turtle River seems to be going against what the taxpayers and people in this province were hoping might be achieved by amalgamation of school divisions.

These people not only were expecting amalgam ation, they were wanting it because they. are such a small school division, the reeve is writing, and to my knowledge there has not been a response to this. The minister, of course, is reaping the anger of people out there because he did not follow a process. I would like to move next to the cost. The minister has repeatedly said that there would be a $1 0-million savings, but nowhere has he ever quantified this. Nowhere has he been able to state these are where the savings will be achieved.

I can tell you even a person like Alex Krawec, who was hand-picked by the Minister of Education to go and represent the people of Morris-Macdonald after the board was fired, when he appeared, he said that reducing the number of school divisions will not result in any significant financial savings. He is consistent with what Mr. Levin has told the minister, again, people close to the minister that he does not listen to, and the Deputy Premier, too, who spoke so eloquently on this issue in the past and put out that press release and talks about the lack of savings. In a document from St.

Boniface, it says the total first-year amalgamation costs have been set at $2.1 million. This is for St. Boniface and St. Vital. I mean, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Selinger), even with the gymnastics that he does in finance, would have trouble understanding how the Minister of Education (Mr.

Caldwell) can find $10 million of savings where people who are in charge of those divisions, the trustees are saying there is going to be a horrendous cost here, $2.1 million this year, and they are going to have to raise that on the special levy, particularly since this Government is funding only 59.2 percent of the operating costs of school divisions. * (15:00) The Assiniboine South School Division is talking about annual cost increases of $488,000. This is the cost of amalgamation. In fact, I mentioned this to one of the members the other day and he says, well, it does not matte r.

It is just the first-year costs. But these costs get built into the base of the Budget and they are there every year. In fact, they get expanded, and as they get into harmonizing the contracts between divisions, all of those costs and benefits will go up. Rather than saving money, there is going to be a tremendous cost. The spokesperson for River East School Division expects a hit of up to $2 million. I can see why the Member for Brandon West is happy that Brandon School Division was not affected.

Rather than saving money, money that the Minister of Education, and I wish he were here, promised that there would be this savings that he has not been able to find, has to know that there is going to be an additional cost. I would think the Deputy Chair of Treasury Board would understand that mergers like this are going to cost money. When there is a harmon ization of contracts, they do not harmonize them to the lowest level, they harmonize them to the highest level. There is going to be a tremendous cost across this province in terms of salaries and benefits.

I would like to reflect briefly on the legislation that is before us. This legislation has within it very, very unusual language, calling on this House to validate the minister and declare that this act has been lawfully made and everything done pursuant to that regulation is

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2261 validated and declared to have been lawfully done. This is an admission that the process laid down in legislation has not been followed. I know that members across the way who have a little more experience as parliamentarians know that this was a bad mistake made by the Minister of Education when he started drawing those boundaries. I do not know whether we should be fortunate that he only got them half done, because there would have been increased cost if he had looked at the entire province. The partial amalgamation is going to be expensive enough.

To have to bring legislation to validate what he is doing and ask us to pass the legislation to admit that it has been lawfully done, I think, is shameful. Also, within this, because members of the public are concerned, they wanted to use the board of reference. They were going to ask the board of reference to intercede. They are trying to go to court to be heard. These are the people that the Minister of Education, with his head down, listened to a barrage from out in Springfield. A thousand people, on very short notice, came forward to complain about this amalgamation.

They thought that through the board of reference they could have an opportunity to make some changes. The minister is frustrating them in having government lawyers go to court and remand this and remand this and remand this. In fact, built into the legislation is an

article here saying that any decision by a court on appeal from an award of a board specified in clause (

b) is of no force and effect as of the day of the decision. This Government is not prepared to listen to grassroots democracy. It is forcing them to go to the courts. Then they are going to pass legislation which makes this effort null and void in the courts. This is shameful. This is legislation like I have not seen in a long, long time. I think it is to bring the hammer of government down on this process. I can understand why the Government and the Minister of Education do not want to have debate in this House, because this is badly, badly flawed. I have much more material that I would like to present.

The Norrie report, and the minister is proud of his autographed copy, anticipated that legislation was not necessary. The Norrie report said this should take three years. The first year you do the regulations; the second year you do the urban amalgamation; and the third year you do the rural ones. This minister is trying to do this in a matter of weeks with a flawed process, in fact, no criteria, a map that does not make sense, one that has incensed two groups of people to want to go to court to fight this. It has offended the trustees association.

Every time the minister brings out the Norrie report, I think it is shameful that he would try and use this particular document to justify what he is doing because he has not followed any part of it. Mr. Chairperson : The honourable member's time is up. Mrs. Joy Smith (Fort Garry): I move, seconded by the Member for Pembina (Mr. Dyck), that debate be adjourned. Motion agreed to. Point of Order Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (Official Opposition House Leader): Mr. Deputy Speaker, on a point of order.

Could you make sure that the Hansard is rushed to the minister's office so that he would have an opportunity to see such a terrific speech? Mr. Mackintosh: The member knows full well that that kind of statement is out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. Let us proceed. *** Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you please call second readings Bills 11, 27 and 30? Mr. Speaker in the Chair SECOND READING S Bill 11 - The Animal Diseases Amendment Act Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and F'ood): Mr. Speaker, I move,

2262 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 seconded by the Minister of Labour and Immigration (Ms. Barrett), that Bill 11, The Animal Diseases Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba livestock producers have the enviable track record, both nationally and internationally, for producing superior quality high-health livestock. The province has always had excellent disease control programs in place, supported by a strong veterinary infrastructure.

The outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the United Kingdom in 2001 stimulated Manitoba Agriculture and Food to re-assess its animal disease status and regulations, as well as its disease preparedness capacity. As part of the re-assessment, we looked at our Foreign Animal Disease Eradication support program, better known as FADE, in conjunction with CFIA, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. * (15:10) My staff has devoted a great deal of time in the past year to upgrade our foreign disease preparedness.

A major part of this re-assessment was the review of our provincial statutes and regulations relating to animal diseases. The Animal Diseases Act is our major piece of legislation in this area. The Animal Diseases Act, last reviewed in 1987, is an excellent statute. However, some areas needed to be amended to facilitate Manitoba Agriculture and Food's approach to dealing with disease emergencies. Consequently, I am pleased to bring forward this bill, The Animal Diseases Amendment Act. It should be noted that CFIA has the regulatory authority to deal with federally reported diseases.

The Animal Diseases Amendment Act is intended to provide a response to a broad range of animal disease issues in Manitoba where there is no federal program, or where the federal program is inadequate for local needs. The disease control component of the bill will allow Manitoba Agriculture and Food to control and eliminate endemic diseases in Manitoba and to investigate the impact of serious exotic diseases in the province. Diseases are identified as requiring a public intervention when they have a real or potential negative impact on agricultural production and marketing or where they affect public health.

The proposed amendments introduced have the following intention: First, Mr. Speaker, to assist provincial and federal partners in emergency management of diseases of trade concern in animals; as well, to enhance biosecurity measures to reduce the opportunity for diseases to be introduced; to provide flexible regulatory support in the development of industry-led disease control programs in animal agriculture; as well, to improve government's flexibility in addressing public health risks from disease and human pathogens in animals; and to name and list reportable diseases.

The reportable disease list will include the current list A and B reportable diseases under the federal Health of Animals Act. It will also include diseases that may have significant economic impact on the livestock industry or diseases that may have significant public health concerns. An example of an economically significant disease is Johne's disease or paratuberculosis in cattle, cervids, bison, sheep or goats. An example of a disease with a public health concern is salmonellalitis, particularly salmo nella DTl 04 in poultry and in pigs.

In the area of human health and safety, there is increasing public interest in developments in animal agriculture and the possible human health risks via the food chain or through the environment. Changes in the act recognize the threats to public health or to the public interest from diseased animals as well as food products derived from these animals. These changes that I mentioned will allow for better communication between veterinarians and human health officers in the event of such an occurrence.

The Animal Diseases Amendment Act provides an avenue for the rapid disclosure of information about reportable diseases. Such information exchange is crucial for prompt and

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2263 effective disease management and control. Sharing infom1ation with CFIA, public health officers and emergency measures agencies will enable Manitoba Agriculture and Food to deal more effectively with animal disease emer gencies and will assist us in protecting the public's interest. Regarding emergency management of diseases, the amendments will enable the Province to more rapidly initiate animal disease movement control and quarantines to reduce the spread of the diseases.

The Province will also be able to institute disease control programs with the components of preparedness, prevention, response and recovery. These amendments will assist the Province in its role as a partner with CFIA in foreign animal disease preparedness and management. The ability to stop all animal movement very early in the course of a suspected disease outbreak is extremely important for preventing further disease spread. The cease movement amendment to this bill provides that authority to our veterinary staff.

This rapid response time is crucial when dealing with diseases that may have a major financial impact on farmers or pose a potential danger to human health. The amendments that have been introduced allow the ministerial appointment of inspectors to carry out the activities outlined in the act. The powers of these inspectors are clearly defined to facilitate inspection, quarantine, seizure and possible destruction of diseased animals. The inspectors cannot enter a dwelling without ilie permission of the occupant without a warrant, Mr. Speaker.

However, the inspectors do have ilie authority to examine and copy any or all records pertinent to the animal acquisition or movement. The offence and penalty areas of the act have also been upgraded to reflect the economic realities of the impact of animal disease in tlle livestock industry and in society at large. So, Mr. Speaker, the proposed maximum fine is $10,000 or imprisonment for a term of up to one year or both.

To assist with the administration of the act, the regulatory powers are being put in place to authorize the collection of information about the location and ownership of farms where animals are kept as well as the types and numbers of animals on these premises. GIS mapping of livestock farms coupled with statistical data in these farms is a key component to rapid response and the control of these outbreaks should we have one, Mr. Speaker.

The regulatory power is also structured to establish structural biosecurity protocols to restrict the movement of animals, vectors and, for mites, to designate health status for flocks and herds, to initiate disease control programs , and to designate areas of the province as a disease control area. Mr. Speaker, The Animal Diseases Amendment Act will position Manitoba as a leader in dealing with domestic and foreign diseases. Manitoba Agriculture and Food is not assuming any role presently covered by CFIA. We are simply solidifying and clarifying our role in the provincial disease control and management area.

Animal disease can have a serious financial and social impact on animal owners, on the industry and the comm unity, Mr. Speaker. The amendments we are proposing are designed to mitigate the risk of introduction of such diseases, to promote the rapid investigation and diagnosis of such diseases, and to control and eradicate such diseases as quickly as is possible.

A commitment to good government requires that Manitoba Agriculture and Food has iliis ability to respond to new and emerging issues regarding animal diseases, especially where there is risk to human healili and safety or considerable risk of financial loss to producers. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is a very important bill that we are bringing forward, given ilie outbreaks of disease that we have seen in other parts of the world. There has been a tremendous amount of work done by my department in this area. A tremendous amount of work is being done in oilier jurisdictions.

I have to say to members opposite that iliere is work that is being done in conjunction with other provinces, wiili our trading partners in ilie U.S. to ensure there is a good plan in place should there be a serious outbreak of disease on this continent. These amendments that are brought forward clarify and solidify our position as a

2264 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 provmce should this unfortunate situation ever occur here. Mr. Peter Dyck (Pembina): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer), that we adjourn debate. Motion agreed to. * (15:20) Biii 27-The Safer Workplaces Act (Workplace Safety and Health Act Amended) Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Transportation and Government Services (Mr. Ashton), that Bill 27, The Safer Workplaces Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented.

Ms. Barrett: I am very pleased to introduce Bill 27, the provisions of which come from the recommendations contained in the report of the Workplace Safety and Health Review Com mittee as well as the public comments received in the weeks following the report's release. At the public hearings of the committee in 2001, Manitobans clearly called for measures to reduce injury rates in Manitoba workplaces. Five of every 100 Manitoba workers are away from work each year as the result of occupational injury or disease. Manitobans made it clear that this is an unacceptable level of suffering.

The review committee's consensus report set out a reasonable, balanced, and practical agenda for improving safety and health in Manitoba workplaces. The review committee particularly emphasized the heightened risks faced by young workers. A key committee recommendation was that government lead a sustained provincial initiative to create a strong workplace safety and health culture in Manitoba.

That initiative would be based on action in four priority areas: public awareness and education; training for employers, supervisors and workers; prevention measures and standards ; and improved internal and external responsibility systems. This is the foundation on which the Government has built a long-term plan to implement the review committee recom mendations and improve safety and health in Manitoba workplaces. This plan includes the proposed amendments contained in Bill 27. The amendments in this bill are a result of the first comprehensive review of the legislation in 25 years.

It is critical that workplace safety and health legislation reflect the evolving workplace. The amendments will modernize the act and are consistent with more recent legislative initiatives in other Canadian jurisdic tions. Many of the amendments are similar to legislation that has existed in other jurisdictions for a number of years. The bill creates new duties for employers and clarifies ex1stm g ones. In addition, amendments place new duties on contractors, owners and suppliers.

In recent years legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions has recognized that the organization of workplaces has changed and the role of these parties in protecting the safety and health of workers must be recognized. The need to provide specific information and training to ensure worker safety and health has been identified as a significant part of protecting workers, in particular young and new workers.

A provision will specifically require that an employer must train a worker in all matters that are necessary to protect the safety and health of the worker before the worker begins performing a work activity at the workplace, before beginning different work, or before beginning work in a different area that has new hazards. An amendment will allow a worker to perform work while being trained if the worker is under the direction of a supervisor or another person who is fully trained and has sufficient experience to ensure the safety of the trainee.

A new provision would require all employers with 20 or more workers to establish, maintain and make available a written workplace safety and health program at the workplace. The program will outline the basic steps that must be taken to

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2265 provide a safe and healthy workplace. The program must be prepared in consultation with the workplace safety and health committee at a workplace. Employers who operate in several locations will be able to apply to the director to develop one safety and health program for the entire operation. This provision is designed to reduce paper burden and allow for the application of the requirement to suit the specific requirements of a workplace where circumstances warrant a variation.

The contents of the safety and health program are consistent with what is currently recommended in international guidelines for safety and health management systems. The provisions help to codify what is reasonable and practicable for an employer to address. Two additional general duties have been proposed for employers, to designate a supervisor for workers, and, where workers are involved in a construction project, to provide the prime contractor with the name of that supervisor.

These proposed additional duties identify that supervisors play an important role in ensuring that worker safety and health are protected. It is proposed that the act be specifically amended to recognize the role of supervisors in maintaining a safe workplace. Supervisors will be responsible to advise workers of the existence of danger to their safety and health of which the supervisor is aware or that was reasonably foreseeable, to ensure that workers use all personal protective equipment provided by the employer, and to ensure that workers work in accordance with the act and its regulations.

An amendment will provide that a prime contractor is required at a construction project where more than one employer or self-employed is involved. The act currently provides that a principal contractor at a workplace must ensure that all employers, workers and others comply with their duties under the act. This provision will be replaced with one that will further clarify the duties of a prime contractor.

The prime contractor will be required to ensure that all persons involved in work at the project comply with the act to co-ordinate the work at a project in a manner that will ensure the safety and health of all persons at the project, to form a workplace safety and health committee for major building projects and to co-ordinate the written safety and health programs of employers involved in the project.

An amendment will clarify that all contractors who are persons directing the activities of one or more employers or self employed persons at a workplace will be responsible for ensuring the overall protection of the safety and health of workers related to the workplace. Contractors will be required to ensure that all matters that are in their control do not create a risk to the safety and health of all persons at the workplace.

It is proposed that the act provide that the owner of land or premises used as a workplace be required to ensure that the land or premises not create a risk to the safety and health of persons at the workplace. In recent years workers have been placed at risk in buildings, not as a result of the actions of their employers but by the actions or lack of action on the part of the building owner. Specific examples of this would include situations where workers are placed at risk from the presence of deteriorating asbestos insulation or the growth of mold.

In these cases the owner of the building, not the employer, is responsible for the remedy to remove the risk. The act will clearly specify that this provision will not apply to homeowners unless the owner is running a business out of the home. A new provision will require persons who supplied biological or chemical substances or any machine, device, tool or equipment to a workplace shall ensure that the substance, machine, device, tool or equipment is safe. A key component of an effective safety and health system is the flow of information between the workplace parties.

New provisions will provide suppliers, owners, prime contractors and contractors to provide information about safety and health risks in the workplace to other parties. This duty to provide information to other workplace parties corresponds to workers' rights to know about the hazards that are present in

2266 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 their workplace and is consistent with industry practices to control workplace hazards. As new duties have been added for owners, contractors, prime contractors, supervisors and suppliers, it is possible that a person may now have multiple functions under the act. For example, an employer may also be the supervisor or contractor. An amendment clarifies that where a person has more than one function, the duties of both functions must be satisfied.

The multiple functions provision codifies the law with respect to the treatment of persons with multiple duties under safety and health legislation. In all provinces, parties with multiple duties must generally fulfill the requirements of each. An amendment however will make it clear that where there are a number of persons with similar duties, to protect workers in a specific case, compliance by one party relieves the others of their duties as long as the safety and health of workers is not put at risk.

The wording of the regulation-making provision in the act has been modernized and made consistent with the drafting style of newer acts. New provisions have been added relating to workplace harassment, violence and pregnant workers. The director will be able to exempt persons, an employer or contractor from a provision of a regulation where technical requirements do not apply to a specific workplace. This amendment will allow for some flexibility in applying the provisions of the regulations to workplaces.

This exemption would only be available on the condition that safety and health is not compromised and only after consultation with the workers and employer. * (15:30) One amendment will be made to the inspection powers of safety and health officers that will enable officers to require any mac hinery, equipment , appliance or thing located at a workplace to be demonstrated to assist in an inspection or an investigation. This amendment is needed to allow safety and health officers to inspect and monitor the operation of equipment during their workplace inspections.

In addition, the responsibility of removing a stop work order has been transferred to safety and health officers. This amendment will allow the officer who issued the stop work order to remove it. This is intended to improve efficiency and reduce delays in the lifting of stop work orders. The lifting of the stop work order by the officer who issued the order is procedurally appropriate in that it is the officer who is aware of when the conditions which warranted the order have been addressed.

An amendment updates and simplifies the existing provisions for communicating improvement orders or stop work orders against an employer, worker, owner, supplier, self-employed person, contractor, or prime contractor. Currently, under the act, the appeal process varies for different orders made under the act. This inconsistency has led to confusion on the part of persons subject to the act. An amendment will streamline and improve the process by providing for a single-appeal process for all orders issued by safety and health officers.

Orders and decisions of a safety and health officer relating to improvement orders, stop work orders, discriminatory actions, or right to refuse dangerous work, will be appealable to the director. Decisions of the director may be further appealed to the Manitoba Labour Board. Instead of deciding an appeal, the director may refer it to the board. This provision is intended to expedite appeals directly to the Labour Board where, in the opinion of the director, such action is warranted.

A number of amendments relate to the requirements for workplace safety and health committees at workplaces and the duties of their members. The criteria for formation of safety and health committees on construction projects will be simplified. The current criteria for the establishment of these committees for a construction project are based on a list of construction activities contained in The Construction Industry Wages Act. These criteria have no consideration for the number of workers or the duration of a project. The proposed amendment redefines what is considered as a major construction project.

The proposed amendment will require a safety and health committee to be formed when more than 20 workers will be present at a construction project for more than 90 days. A

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE AS SEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2267 further amendment will allow the director to require more than one committee for a workplace or allow one committee for more than one workplace. The issue of the order will depend on the organizational structure of the workplace and take into consideration the level of risk to health and safety of workers and will allow the number of committees to be consistent with the risk associated with the workplace. In making the determination, the director will consider both the nature of the work and the frequency of injury or illness at the workplace.

Provisions will be added to the duties of the committee to make it clear that the committee has the duty to make the recommendations to the employer respecting the safety and health of workers in the workplace; inspect the condition of the workplace at regular intervals; participate in investigations of accidents and dangerous occurrences. This is consistent with the duties of committees in other Canadian jurisdictions.

The act will be amended to clarify that members of a workplace safety and health committee are entitled to take time from their regular duties to carry out their safety and health duties, and this time is recognized as work time without loss of pay. Currently, the workplace safety and health committee regulation under the act states that members of the committee cannot be discriminated against for participating in the activities of the committee. This provision is consistent with the current application of the regulation and is being carried forward from the regulation.

An amendment will form alize the process for employers to respond to recommendations made by a safety and health committee or representative. If the employer does not take action to address a recommendation, he or she must provide the committee with a response within 30 days. The employer's response must contain a timetable for implementing the recommendations or give reasons why the employer disagrees with any recommendations.

Where the parties cannot resolve a problem, the matter may be referred to a safety and health officer, and, where required, the officer may then issue an order or a decision in accordance with the act. A provision will clarify that a representative of the workers may accompany the safety and health officer on an inspection at the request of the officer. This requirement is currently contained in regulation. The amendment also clarifies that the employer must allow the worker to accompany the officer.

Currently, under the act, where a worker alleges that an employer or union has discriminated against the worker for exercising a right or duty under the act, the worker must apply to the Labour Board for a remedy. It is proposed that safety and health officers deal with the matter. The officer would investigate the allegation and issue an order if the claim is substantiated.

The order could require an employer, or, where applicable, the union to cease the discriminatory action, reinstate the worker to their former employment status, pay to the worker any lost wages, and/or remove any reprimand or other reference to the matter from any employment records. The officer's decision may be appealed to the director and the director's decision further appealed to the Labour Board. An amendment will provide that a worker cannot be discriminated against where the worker takes reasonable actions to protect the safety and health of another person at the workplace.

Another change will allow the worker co-chairperson, or, where there is not a safety and health committee, the worker representative to be involved in the inspection relating to the right to refuse unsafe work. Another amendment will clarify that where workers exercise their right to refuse to perform dangerous work under the act or are involved in stop-work situations, they are to be provided with a temporary reassignment to alternate work or pay in lieu.

The amount of time a safety and health committee member or safety and health representative is allowed to take for the purpose of safety and health training will be clarified. Under the existing provisions, those who work 1 0-hour shifts could lose pay, as they would be limited to receiving eight hours of pay each day. The bill provides that the director may stipulate that tests must be performed at a workplace by a technically qualified person. This provision will ensure that in specific cases the director has necessary information for the effective administration of the act.

2268 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 A number of amendments are being proposed that will assist in ensuring that the safety and health requirements of the act are complied with. The Workplace Safety and Health Review Committee noted that non compliance with improvement orders is a significant problem. When safety and health officers identify a contravention of the act or regulations, they issue an improvement order which requires corrective action by a certain date. If circumstances are such that the time line for compliance cannot be met, employers may obtain an extension.

If they believe the improvement order is improper, they may also appeal it. Despite that, approximately 30 percent of improvement orders are not complied with by the required date. Because of this very significant problem with compliance, amendments are being pro posed that will allow for the issuance of an administrative monetary penalty under the act. The amount of the penalty to be assessed will be set by regulation. We intend to consult with stakeholders in determining the amounts of these penalties. The amendment provides that the maximum amount of the penalty will be set at $5,000. .

The administrative penalties are a way to level the playing field for all Manitoba businesses and individuals. We must not forget that most businesses are prepared to meet their responsibilities under the act. As a result, there is an unfair advantage to those who do not comply. Currently, occupational safety and health legis lation in British Columbia and the Yukon provide for administrative penalties.

In recent years administrative penalties have also been implemented in the legislation of a number of jurisdictions, including British Columbia and Ontario employment standards legisl ation; Ontario and Alberta environment legislation; and federal pesticides legislation. To assist with the enforcement of the act, the time limit for initiating a prosecution under the act is proposed to be changed from one year to two years. A two-year limit on prosecution is standard in most Manitoba legislation and similar legislation in other Canadian jurisdictions.

A further amendment will allow judges to consider additional fines on prosecutions. In such cases the penalty assessed would be used to conduct public education activities. The total value of fines would not exceed the maximum amount of $150,000 already provided for in the act. Finally, an amendment will ensure that The Workplace Safety and Health Act is reviewed at least once every five years by the Advisory Council on Workplace Safety and Health provided for in the act.

This will ensure that the act will keep pace with changes in Manitoba workplaces and ensure that the safety and health of workers is safeguarded. I would like once again to take this opportunity to thank the review committee members for their advice and guidance and all Manitobans who participated in the public review process. The input that was provided was invaluable. These amendments will bring Manitoba into the mainstream of Canadian safety and health legislation.

They will not undermine Manitoba's competitive position with other jurisdictions. * (15:40) Safer, healthier workplaces and safer, healthier workers will, in fact, strengthen Manitoba's competitive abilities because we know safety and health are vital components of productivity in any sector. In closing, I feel that our proposed amendments are a balanced and practical approach to safer and healthier workplaces, an important goal for employees, employers, and Manitoba families. The changes will promote clarity and consistency in application and enforcement.

The Government accepts its responsibility to build a strong safety and health culture in Manitoba. We are taking action now that will save lives in the future. Mr. Speaker, I heartily commend this bill for approval by this House. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith), that debate now be adjourned. Motion agreed to.

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2269 Bill 30- The Architects Amendment Act Hon. Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Ms. Wowchuk), that Bill 30, The Architects Amendment Act, be now read a second time and be referred to a committee of this House. Motion presented. Ms. Barrett: I am pleased to introduce Bill 30 which proposes to amend The Architects Act for purposes of updating the legislation to bring it into line with other statutes regulating professions and to enhance the enforcement provisions of the act.

These amendments were developed in response to recommendations made by the Manitoba Association of Architects, a professional standards body that is responsible for governing the profession and the conduct of its members. The current act allows for the practice of architecture by a corporation in its own name provided that the corporation obtains a certificate of approval from the Architects Association and meets certain other specified requirements. For example, one requirement is for the corporation to have professional liabilit y insurance coverage.

The proposed amendments to the act would allow for the practice of architecture by partnerships or corporations in their own name as well as by other types of groups such as consortiums, joint ventures, partnerships or other legal entities provided that specified requirements were complied with. This would also authorize the association to officially regulate the practice of architecture by these groups. These amendments are consistent with provisions in other statutes that govern professions.

It is also proposed that provision be mad e for the issuance of temporary licences to persons, corporations or partnerships of corporations who are entitled to practise architecture in other jurisdictions so as to allow them to collaborat e on projects with architects or architectural corporations registered in Man itoba. In addition, the proposed bill provides for enhanced penalties for contraventions of the legislation. For breach of the act, the maximum fine will increase from $500 to $10,000 for a first offence and from $1,000 to $20,000 for a subsequent offence.

This is consistent with provisions in the engineering and geoscience legislation and is also generally in line with fine levels in other legislatio n respecting professions. The bill allows the Manitoba Association of Architects to institute civil proceedings as an alternative to prosecutions for unauthorized practice. This would take the form of injunctions being sought against persons practising archi tecture without an appropriate licence or certificate or against employers of such persons.

Provisions to apply for injunctions in similar circumstances currently exist in virtually all other statutes in Manitoba that govern professions including The Engineering and Geoscientific Professions Act. Finally, the bill streamlines the appeals process for discipline hearings. Currently, the Manitoba Association of Architects can conduct discipline hearings with an aggrieved person being able to appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench. It is proposed that appeals from discipline hearings be made directly to the Manitoba Court of Appeal.

This would eliminate the need for a full retrial of the facts of the case and would be consistent with a number of other statutes that govern members of various professions such as lawyers, doctors and engineers.

In developing the recommendations that are incorporated in Bill 30, the Manitoba Association of Architects consulted with a number of organizations, including the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Manitoba, the Association of Manitoba Land Surveyors, the Manitoba Association of Landscape Architects, the Winnipeg Construction Association, the Professional Interior Designers Institute of Manitoba, the Architectural and Building Technologists Association of Manitoba and the Certified Technicians and Technologists Association of Manitoba.

In addition, the proposed amendments have been reviewed by the Government's Legal Services personnel. In our view, the amendments set out in this bill have the full support of the

2270 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA June 5, 2002 stakeholders and are in the public interest. I therefore conunend it for the approval of the Assembly. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Fort Garry (Mrs. Smith), that debate be now adjourned. Motion agreed to. Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you please call debate on second readings, Bill 22. DEBATE ON SECOND READINGS Bi11 22-The Public Schools Amendment Act (Francophone School Division Governance Structure) Mr.

Speaker: Resume debate on second readings of Bill 22, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Francophone School Division Governance Structure), standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman (Mr. Rocan). Is it the will of the House for the bill to remain standing in the name of the honourable Member for Carman? [Agreed} �s. Linda Asper (Riel): Le mm1stre de !'Education du Manitoba (M. Caldwell) a annonce le 15 mai 2002 un projet de loi n° 22 modifiant Ia

Loi sur les ecoles publiques (structure de gestion de Ia division scolaire de langue franyaise). Ce projet de loi vise Ia modernisation de Ia gestion de Ia Division scolaire franco-manitobaine, Ia DSFM. La modification principale propose que les conunissaires soient dorenavant elus directement par les parents et non plus au sein des comites regionaux. Le projet de loi propose egalement a la DSFM de creer un groupe consultatif sur les reglements pour chacune des quatres regions qu'elle dessert.

Ces groupes auraient pour mandat de transmettre a l'organisme les conunentaires des membres de Ia conununaute sur diverses questions. Ce projet de loi fait suite aux reconunandations contenues dans le rapport Cenerini en 200 1. Norbert Cenerini, educateur franco-manitobain a Ia retraite, a etudie Ia structure de gestion a Ia demande de Ia DSFM et il a soumis son rapport en mai 2001.

La DSFM voulait une etude afin d'ameliorer sa structure, Ia rendre plus efficace et la rapprocher des parents. * (15:50) Regardons Ia chronologie sonunaire des evenements menant a Ia creation de Ia Division scolaire franco-manitobaine. En 1982 Ia loi constitutionnelle enchasse Ia Charte canadienne des droits et libertes, laquelle renferme des garanties au

chapitre des langues officielles.

L'article 23 de Ia Charte porte precisement sur les droits de Ia minorite linguistique en matiere d'enseignement. Le 15 mars 1990, le jugement de Ia Cour supreme du Canada, dans le cas Mahe-Alberta, confirme le droit des minorites de langue officielle de gerer et de controler leurs propres ecoles, Ia ou le nombre le justifie. La Cour indique egalement que chaque province devrait concevoir pour Ia minorite un systeme de gestion scolaire qui convient aux besoins et a Ia situation particuliere de sa province . Le jugement de Ia Cour supreme renverse le jugement de Ia Cour d'appel du Manitoba.

Le 2 aout 1990, Ia Conunission Gallant a ete etablie par le gouvernement. Ce Groupe de travail manitobain sur Ia gestion des ecoles franco-manitobaines, avait le mandat de conseiller le gouvernement du Manitoba sur l'etablissement d'un systeme de gestion scolaire pour Ia minorite francophone. Le 27 juin 1991, le Rapport Gallant a ete rendu public. Le 26 mars 1992 le gouvernement a annonce Ia politique gouvernementale en matiere de gestion scolaire. Le 22 septembre 1992 le gouvernement a annonce Ia nomination de M. Alfred Monnin conune president du Groupe de mise en oeuvre.

Le 27 juillet 1993 le Projet de loi 34 a ete adopte par l'Assemblee legislative du Manitoba. Le 27 octobre 1993 Ia Conunission Monnin a presente son rapport final au gouvernement, et c'est le 12 janvier 1994 qu'ont eu lieu ]'election des comites regionaux et !'election du conseil scolaire de la Division scolaire franco-manitobaine n° 49, la DSFM. Enfin le 1 er juillet 1994, 20 ecoles sont prises en charge par Ia DSFM et en septembre 1994 l'enseignement est livre sous l'autorite de Ia DSFM.

June 5, 2002 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 2271 Voici un petit

sommaire. La situation actuelle est que 22 ecoles sont sous la DSFM. Y sont inscrits 4430 eleves. I1 y a une Entente speciale Canada-Manitoba sur des mesures d'investissement relatives a la qualite de !'education dans la langue de la minorite. Quant a la structure de gestion aujourd'hui, la DSFM est formee des quatre regions suivantes : la region urbaine, la region de l'est, la region du sud et la region de l'ouest. La DSFM se compose de trois elements cles: des comites d'ecole locaux, des comites regionaux, et la commission scolaire.

Les parents elisent les comites regionaux et les comites regionaux elisent 11 commissaires, dont quatre proviennent de la region urbaine, trois de la region de l'est, deux de la region du sud et deux de la region de )'ouest. Translation On May 15, 2002, the Minister of Education of Manitoba (Mr. Caldwell) announ ced Bill 22, The Public Schools Amendment Act (Franco phone school division govern ance structure). This bill is intended to modernize the governance of the Franco phone school division, the DSFM.

The prin cipal amend ment proposes that trustees now be directly elected by the parents and no longer by the regional communi ties. The bill also proposes that the DSFM create a by-law advisory group for each of the four regions served. The mand ate of these groups would be to provide community in put on various matters. This bill reflects recommendations contained in the 2001 Cen erini report. Norbert Cenerini, a retired Franco-Man itoban educator, examined the govern ance structure at the request of the DSFM and submitted his report in May 2001.

The DSFM wanted to have a stud y conducted in order to improve its structure, make it more effective and bring it closer to the parents. Let us look briefly at the chron ology of events that led to the creation of the Franco phone school division. In 1982, the Constitution Act enshrined the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which contained guarantees concerning the offi cial languages.

Section 23 of the Charter deals specificially with the educational rights of the linguistic minority. On March 15, 1990, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Mahe vs. Alberta confirmed the right of off icial language min orities to manage and con trol their own schools where num bers warrant. The Court also indicated that each province must establish a schools govern ance syste

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-3-43
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 3rd hansardpdf 43.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	7aa4343109ddd913b8c1a6e14e3a4c8a673190e7

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