Manitoba Hansard — 8 May 2001 (Sitting 26, 37th Legislature, 2nd Session)

37-2-26

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

Second Session - Thirty-Seventh Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba :"'!,::·�� .• ..... ,. DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS Official Report (Hansard) Published under the authority of The Honourable George Hickes Speaker Vol. LI No. 26 - 1:30 p.m., Thesday, May 8, 2001 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 DACQUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary, Hon. DRIEDGER, Myrna DYCK, Peter ENNS, Harry FAURSCHOU, David FRIESEN, Jean, Hon. GERRARD, Jon, Hon. GILLESHAMMER, Harold HEL WER, Edward HICKES, George JENNISSEN, Gerard KORZENIOWSKI, Bonnie LATHLIN, Oscar, Hon. LAURENDEAU, Marcel LEMIEUX, Ron, Hon. LOEWEN, John MACKINTOSH, Gord, Hon. MAGUIRE, Larry MALOWAY, Jim MARTINDALE, Doug McGIFFORD, Diane, Hon. MIHYCHUK, MaryAnn, Hon.

MITCHELSON, Bonnie MURRAY, Stuart NEV AKSHONOFF, Tom PENNER, Jack PENNER, Jim PITURA, Frank PRAZNIK, Darren 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 Gimli Point Douglas Flin Flon St. James The Pas St. Norbert La Verendrye Fort Whyte St. Johns Arthur-Virden Elmwood Burrows Lord Roberts Minto River East Kirkfteld Park Interlake Emerson Steinbach Morris Lac du Bonnet Transcona Southdale Rupertsland Carman Assiniboia Fort Rouge Wellington Rossmere 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. 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. 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. PC . N.D.P. P.C. N.D.P.

1403 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Tuesday, May 8, 2001 The House met at 1:30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS PRESENTING PETITIONS Manitoba Hydro Lines Routes Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of M. Wakula, R. Friesen, F. Nowicki and others, praying that the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro (Mr. Sel inger) consider alternative routes for the additional230 kV and 500 kV lines proposed for the R.M. of East St. Paul. Kenaston Underpass Mr. John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Angie LeGras, Randy Steinuck, Alissa Minaudier and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition for- Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable member will have to seek leave first. Mr. Tweed: I am seeking leave to present the petition on behalfo f the Member for Morris (Mr. Pitura). Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed] Mr. Tweed: Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Gerry Poirier, Eveline Lagace and Gerald Vouriot and others, praying that the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS Manitoba Hydro Lines Routes Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler), I have reviewed the petition and it complies with the rules and practices of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: Clerk, please read.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the R.M. of East St. Paul has the highest concentration of high voltage power lines in a residential area in Manitoba; and THAT the R.M. of East St. Paul is the only jurisdiction in Manitoba that has both a 500kV and a 230kV line directly behind residences; and THAT numerous studies have linked cancer, in particular chi ldhood leukemia, to the proximity of power lines.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIO NERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba request that the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro consider alternative routes for the additional 230kV and 500kV lines proposed for the R.M. of East St. Paul. Kenaston Underpass * (13:35) Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Fort Whyte (Mr. Loewen), I have reviewed the petition. It complies with the rules and practices

1404 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 of the House. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read? Some Honourable Members: Yes. Mr. Speaker: The Clerk please read.

Madam Clerk (Patricia Chaychuk): The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT the intersection at Wilkes and Kenaston has grown to become the largest unseparated crossing in Canada; and THAT the volume of traffic for this railroad crossing is twelve times the acceptable limit as set out by Transport Canada; and THAT vehicles which have to wait for trains at this intersection bum up approximately $1. 4 million in fuel, pollute the environment with over 8 tons of emtsswns and cause approximately $7.3 million in motorist delays every year.

WHEREFORE YOUR PETITIONERS HUMBLY PRAY THAT the Premier of Manitoba consider reversing his decision to not support construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. PRESENTING REPORTS BY STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES Committee of Supply Mr. Conrad Santos (Cha irperson): Mr. Sp eaker, the Committee of Supply has adopted a certain resolution, directs me to report the same and asks leave to sit again. I move, seconded by the honourable Member for Sel kirk (Mr. Dewar), that the report of the committee be received. Motion agreed to. MINISTERI AL STATEMENTS North American Occupational Safety and Health Week Hon.

Becky Barrett (Minister of Labour and Immigration): I have a ministerial statement for the House. This is the fifth year that occupational saf ety and health is being recognized on a North American basis by Canada, Mexico and the United States. The goal of North American Occupational Saf ety and Health or NAOSH Week is to focus the attention of employers, employees, the general public and all partners in occupational health and safety in the three countries on the importance of preventing injury and illness in the workplace.

The objectives of NAOSH Week are to increase employees, employer and public understanding of the benefits of investment in occupational safety and health, to raise the awareness of the role and contribution of safety and health professionals and to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses by encouraging new safety and health activities. In order to reach that goal all parties involved have a role to play. When it comes to occupational safety and health prevention the following elements are critical. Corporate executives must exercise leadership and responsibility for safety matters.

Employers and employees must give their full commitment. Occupational safety and health committees must demonstrate their ef fectiveness, governments must exercise vigilance, partnerships in occupational safety and health are also a crucial element to success. The Workers Compensation Board and the Workplace Saf ety and Health division have strengthened their alliance to work co operatively in addressing safety and health concerns. A primary focus is the high injury rates of our youth. They are also looking at ways to make prevention activities more ef fective.

Everyone plays a role in creating a safe and healthy work environment. Both employers and employees must work together to identify hazards, evaluate and assess risks and implement measures to protect workers from workplace injury and disease. An improved work environ ment creates a more productive workplace. As a result, there is a significant economic benefit in addition to the obvious benefits to society in general. The Department of Labour and Immigration is committed to an improvement in the reduction of workplace injury and disease.

Everyone benefits from a focussed, collaborative approach to safety concerns in the workplace.

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1405 Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): I would like to thank the minister for having raised NAOSH for the second time during this session, last session and this time. I think it is very important for us to take a moment and reflect on safety in the workplace. What is so significant about this particular week is that it is North American wide, and we have seen a lot of attempts to work on a North American basis. This is one of those instances where we have met with some degree of success. I think all of us have a vested interest as family members or neighbours or friends.

Constituents head off in the morning; our wish certainly is that they return in a safe fashion. The objectives of NAOSH week are, as the minister said, to increase employees, employers and public understanding of the benefits of investment in occupational safety and health, and certainly that was something in the last II years of Conservative government, and we have seen it continue under this Government as well, that we continue to invest in our workers.

Workers Compensation and all the health costs are difficult for our system to take, and if we spend money and we invest money on prevention and safety it is far better doing it that way than spending it afterwards to repair people's bodies and those kinds of things. * (13:40) So the other one is to raise the awareness of the role and contribution of safety and health professionals.

Certainly we really do appreciate the men and women who are out there ensuring that the workplaces are safe and the kinds of jobs that they do, and also to reduce workplace injuries and illnesses by encouraging new safety and health activities. Certainly that is something that we want to encourage as our society moves ahead. There are new challenges for businesses, for industry and the kinds of things we have not seen in the past as we move to a more modernized society, and certainly we want to make sure that all of our workers are safe.

We on this side continue to support this, and we are very pleased that it is a North American-wide week and we would like to wish them all the best. Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr. Speaker, I ask for leave to make a few comments on the minister's statement. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave? [Agreed] Mr. Gerrard: Mr. Speaker, health and safety in the workplace are fundamentally important, and it is a good thing that we have a week dedicated to remind us and to build on our commitment toward this end. As the Leader of the Liberal Party, I join with the other parties in supporting this.

TABLING OF REPORTS Hon. Diane McGifford (Minister of Advanced Education): On behalf of the honourable Minister of Family Services and Housing (Mr. Sale), I am pleased to table the 2001-2002 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Mani toba Family Services and Housing and the 2001- 2002 Departmental Expenditure Estimates for Healthy Child Manitoba. Hon. Greg Selinger (Minister responsible for the Civil Service): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 2001-2002 Departmental Expenditure Estimates Supplementary Information for Legis lative Review for the Manitoba Civil Service Commission. Introduction of Guests Mr.

Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the gallery where we have with us from Linden Meadows School, 27 Grade 9 students under the direction of Ms. Kyllikki Anne Ruus. The school is located in the constituency of the honourable Member for Fort White (Mr. Loewen). On behalf of all honourable members, I wel come you here today. ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Inf rastructure Projects Government Priorities Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): Mr.

Speaker, the Doer government said it will share the infrastructure priorities with Manitobans sometime this month. Over six

1406 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 years, $18 0 million in infrastructure funding is supposed to be targeted for projects that would bring new opportunities to Manitoba, projects that would improve and enhance our wonderful province. How the Doer government spends these infrastructure dollars will demonstrate their priorities to Manitobans. Mr. Spea ker, can the Deputy Premier outline for Manitobans where exactly the Doer government's priorities lie in terms of infrastructure funding? Hon. Jean Friesen {Deputy Premier): I thank the honourable member for that question.

The infrastructure agreement, as the member knows, is a partnership agreement. The federal government has indicated that its priority is green infrastructure, and that is certainly something with which we agree. I think the Premier (Mr. Doer) has also stated on many occasions that the priorities for the province are water-related issues and issues of downtown revitalization. Mr. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Manitobans want to be assured that the infrastructure projects will be chosen on merit and not because they are done for political reasons.

I believe Manitobans are going to rely on this Government to ensure that they do exactly what is right for the province. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Murray: As I was saying, these decisions made by the Doer government should not be done for political reasons. Mr. Speaker, will the Deputy Premier explain to Manitobans what process the Doer government is going to use to prioritize these very important projects? Ms. Friesen: I am sure the honourable member is aware of the nature of the operation of the infrastructure program.

It is essentially three pots of money: one which is for the city of Winnipeg, one which is for strategic projects agreed to. by the senior levels of government, and the third one is for rural and northern infrastructure. In the case of the rural and northern infrastructure, Mr.

Speaker, we have proceeded with an enhancement of the process that had existed in a previous infrastructure agreement, which, I understand, was well received across the province and certainly was emulated by other provinces, and that is the creation of an advisory committee, a local advisory committee repre sented by the northern mayors and reeves, as well as the AMM. I may take this opportunity to say how grateful we are to them for their input.

I know that they have worked very hard to recommend projects, to sift through a great many projects, which far exceed the amount of money, in fact, that is available under the infrastructure program. We were able at rural forums, I am sure the member knows, to announce three of those projects, two of them in boil water communities. * (13:45) Kenaston Underpass Mr. Stuart Murray (Leader of the Official Opposition): I think it is important when you talk about infrastructure priorities, Mr.

Speaker, to understand that thousands of Manitobans from Winnipeg and surrounding rural areas of Winnipeg strongly support building an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Murray: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that they are very interested in the question, but the Doer government is ignoring the petitions, the phone calls and the letters demanding that an underpass be built. Mr. Speaker, and I quote- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to quote that yesterday a Mr.

Kevin Draper wrote to the MLA for Charleswood (Mrs. Driedger): Today, I was 15 minutes late to pick up my six-year-old son from school because of the train at Wilkes and Kenaston. He was waiting all alone on the sidewalk outside the

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1407 school when I finally got there. We need the underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. It is not a luxury. Can the Deputy Premier explain to the Drapers, and other Manitobans why the Doer government did not include the Kenaston underpass in their infrastructure selection process? Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovern mental Affairs): Mr.

Speaker, I think I have already indicated that the priority for the Government in infrastructure is water related issues, floodway, drainage, all of the issues that are of concern to all Manitobans and where we have already announced one of the infrastructure projects, and that is the so-called notches in the floodway which I think have certainly been well received. If I can refer to my earlier response, the City of Winnipeg's list-they are, in a sense, our advisory committee for issues in the city of Winnipeg-did produce a list which indicated that they had a request for I think over $154 million in total.

As I said yesterday in my response to the Member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau), we had anticipated, indeed have been led to believe, that there was more money in the infrastructure program than in fact there was in the end. So, yes, from the list of seven projects that the City of Winnipeg has submitted, we and the federal government are going to have to make a selection that takes into account the best interests of all Manitobans, and Winnipeggers in particular. We are continuing discussions on that, and we will do our best to do that. Infrastructure Projects Kenaston Underpass Mr.

John Loewen (Fort Whyte): Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, we have heard from thousands of Manitobans who favour the construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes. This underpass would be an environ mentally friendly alternative that facilitates a faster, safer and more efficient movement of traffic through the largest bottleneck on the mid- continental transport corridor between Winnipeg and Mexico. My question to the minister is: If indeed they are still evaluating the proposals, as she just suggested, why is the minister standing up, why is the Premier (Mr.

Doer) standing up and saying there will not be an underpass built at that site? Hon. Jean Friesen (Minister of Intergovern mental Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think the member misunderstood the context of my response. He is quite correct that the Premier has said that that is not our first priority. Our first priority is water-related issues and downtown issues, and so we are continuing. I would like to be able to give the members of the House, in fact, the actual projects that are a final result of the discussions.

I am not able to do that at the moment, and that was the context of my saying that discussions are continuing. * (13:50) Mr. Loewen: Mr. Speaker, given that the minister has told us that there will be $54 million targeted from the infrastructure program for the city of Winnipeg, I would ask her if she can identify on the list of projects delivered to her by the City of Winnipeg by unanimous approval from City Council's floor, which of the projects this Government of Manitoba has put ahead of the underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes? Is it the footbridge from Provencher to The Forks? Is it river-front drive?

Is it improvements at the zoo? Which one of these projects is this Government favouring ahead of the most-needed project, which is the construction of an underpass at Kenaston and Wilkes? Ms. Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concern of the Member for Fort Whyte in asking these questions. I am afraid that all I say to him is the same response that I have given bef ore that these matters are under discussion. We are a partner with the federal government in this, and I respect that partnership. Mr. Loewen: Well, the minister never answered the question of why the Premier (Mr. Doer) slammed the door on it.

1408 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 So I am going to ask the Minister of Trans portation- Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Govern ment House Leader, on a point of order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): I have to try the old 409 rule and the old 410 rule. Mr. Speaker, would you please remind the member that a supplementary question requires no

preamble, and that is exactly what we have been getting repeatedly from the member. Mr. Speaker: On the point of order raised by the honourable Government House Leader, I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members that Beauchesne's Citation 409(2) advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. * * * Mr. Loewen: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and I am going to ask him how he is going to reconcile his statement in the latest Manitoba Chamber of Commerce magazine Focus where he is quoted as saying: Our ability to compete as a country internationally is very much based on our ability to get goods and services to market. How does he reconcile that quote with the Premier's (Mr. Doer) position that there will be no underpass built on the main thoroughfare that serves the mid-west corridor? Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon.

Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): I am pleased that the member opposite has read that article. Perhaps he would like to read the rest of the

article where we talk about this Government's vision for transportation in Manitoba that includes all of Manitoba, including rural and northern Manitoba, that includes other needed projects in the capital area including the Highway 59 four-laning. I say to the member opposite that we are dealing with the same sort of situation with infrastructure that we deal with in transportation, which is far more projects than there is funding available.

What I suggest to the member opposite, if he has real concern about these kinds of issues, he might want to join our call for the federal government to be doing far more to invest in our national transportation system in which case we would be able to do a lot more in this province. But we have to set an agenda that is based on priorities, and our priorities, Mr. Speaker, are province-wide, and that is included in that article, by the way. * (13:55) Downtown Arena Government Priority Mr. Marcel Laurendeau (St. Norbert): Mr.

Speaker, many Winnipeggers do not consider a downtown arena priority for their tax dollars. That has not stopped the Doer government from putting $50 million of taxpayers' money on the table to help the private sector invest or build a 15 000-seat arena at the old Eaton's site. Can the Deputy Premier explain why her Government has put $50 million on the table, when the First Minister (Mr. Doer) is on the record stating that the downtown arena should be a private-sector-led initiative? Hon. Jean Friesen (Deputy Premier): I think the Member for St. Norbert is making some quite unsubstantiated allegations.

I think he should check his facts. However, he is quite correct in saying that the Premier has said and maintains that any support for any entertainment complex in Winnipeg must be private-sector-led and based upon a sound business plan. Mr. Laurendeau: Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Premier indicate whether the Doer government wiii increase the number of VL Ts in Manitoba to provide a downtown arena that is indeed a mini casino complete with VL Ts? Ms. Friesen: I think the member again is raising a number of issues for which he has no substantiation.

I am afraid I have no further news for him on any entertainment centre at this time. Mr. Laurendeau: Can the Deputy Premier tell me where her priorities lie? Are they in the infrastructure for protecting the flood proofing

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1409 of the constituencies or building a new arena downtown? Ms. Friesen: The member is raising the same question as other members of his party have raised, and I am sure it is no surprise to them that the answer is the same. First Nations Casinos Gaming Commission Compliance Mr. Mervin Tweed (Turtle Mountain): We have recently received information that six First Nations gaming commissions are not functioning in accordance with the Gaming Commission agreements entered into with the Province. Mr.

Speaker, it is incumbent upon this Government to ensure adherence to the Gaming Commission agreements by all third parties contracting with the Government. My question for the Minister responsible for Gaming: Could he identify the six First Nations Gaming Commissions currently not in compliance? Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister charged with the administration of The Gaming Control Act): We, through the Gaming Commission, are involved in ongoing regulation of gaming, including First Nations gaming. There may indeed be bands, there may in fact be other people in the gaming system that are not in compliance.

The bottom line, Mr. Speaker, if the member opposite wishes to hear that information, I can provide it to him, but once again, we do make every effort to ensure that our gaming provisions are complied with. In fact, when it came to our First Nations casinos, for example, that was and will continue to be one of the preconditions for any proponent under the Gaming Commission. Mr. Tweed: Then my second question is: Can he advise this House if any of those six organizations are involved in proposals for First Nations casinos? Mr. Ashton: Mr.

Speaker, if there are any that are involved as proponents, I indicated in the answer to the first question that one of the preconditions for any of the proponents is that all of those involved with the proposal are in compliance with our rules and regulations through the Gaming Commission. So the bottom line is that it was the original condition for First Nations casinos. That remains the condition today. Mr. Tweed: One of the preconditions was that they were supposed to be in compliance before they applied. Can the minister inform the House if he has taken any steps to ensure that all are under full compliance?

Mr. Ashton: Mr. Speaker, we have taken steps, including, for example, there were a number of additional VL Ts that were allocated by the previous government to First Nations. We required that proponents be in full compliance with Gaming Commission regulations before they could access such VL Ts, and in fact, that was complied with in a number of cases. I want to stress again to the member here that, for any proposal to go ahead in terms of the First Nations casinos, the condition is and it remains that all the proponents will have to be in compliance with gaming regulations in other areas. That remains, period.

That is the bottom line. * (14:00) Disaster Assistance R.M. of Westbourne Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): One of the areas that has been raised previously in this House having had considerable damage and difficulty with the spring runoff this year is the area of the Whitemud Watershed Conservation District, the Big Grass Marsh, the municipalities surrounding it, and particularly the municipality of W estbourne.

I wonder if the Minister of Government Services would be prepared, for the record, to indicate what support these municipalities are eligible for given that they have suffered considerable infrastructure damage. Hon. Steve Ashton (Minister of Transportation and Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that I did tentatively have a meeting scheduled today with

1410 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 the R.M. of W estbourne. That may depend on Estimates, so I hope to have the opportunity to discuss it with them generally. I can indicate that we are currently assessing the damage in Westbourne, also in other areas of the province, the Interlake and in the southeast. I can indicate that OF AA guidelines are fairly clear.

Certainly municipal infrastructure is an eligible expense, and, in fact, going back to the fall of last year, November of last year to be specific, we already are preparing a program for the damage that occurred then and which will include the municipal infrastructure. I would expect that the same situation would apply to Westbourne this spring. Inf rastructure Projects R.M. of Westbourne Mr. Glen Cummings (Ste. Rose): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of Conservation. There is considerable concern about the accumulation of water in the Big Grass Marsh.

I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to be briefed about some of the projects that may be put in place to alleviate that damage. Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): can indicate to the member that I had the opportunity to meet with the civic leaders from the R.M. of Westbourne, and, of course, the topic was this long-standing issue of the marsh area, the flooding problems that these people experience almost on a yearly basis. This problem apparently, according to my research and also the information that the civic leaders gave me this morning, has been there for approximately 20 years.

They showed me very graphically by way of photographs the extent of the problems that the flo oding is infl icting on them, and I made a commitment to the people that we would work with them with a view to eventually coming up with a solution that is very complex and very costly if it were to be a corrected problem. Mr. Cummings: My second supplementary question. I want to ask the Minister of Conservation if he wiii in fact consult with the minister of highways on potential solutions to the problems in that area, one of which involves both ministers. Mr.

Lathlin: Yes, I indicated to the c1v1c leaders from the R.M. that in order for us to be able to tackle this very complex problem, we needed to approach it in a co-ordinated fashion, not just from the R.M., including the surround ing communities by the way in the R.M. of Westbourne, because I understand that not just water has been a problem in this issue, but the very fact that there has been a lack of consensus amongst the surrounding communities as to the possible solution to the problem. I think we also, further to that, need to be co-ordinated in terms of a government response.

I indicated to the people that the Department of Transportation and Government Services and also the Intergovernmental Affairs Department, the three departments would get together and see what we can come up with. Economic Crisis Rural Manitoba Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. In Brandon at the Agriculture committee hearings, the Association of Manitoba Municipalities described the present severe farm crisis as one of the most important public policy issues of the last 50 years.

I ask the minister: Why is she determined to play political football with the farm crisis and why was she recommending last night, as the primary outcome of the committee's deliber ations, a handoff to the federal agricultural committee rather than developing a meani ngful action plan that can be implemented at both provincial and federal levels? Hon.

Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): I am really surprised at the member for implying that I am playing politics with this issue, which is a very, very important issue, one where we have had an all party committee travel across the province listening to Manitobans and hearing the issues. I can tell the member that I listened to what the presenters said, and they did come forward with many suggestions and solutions. One of the major suggestions was that we have to have the

May 8, 200 1 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 141 1 federal government live up to their responsibility in support for the farmers. I am surprised that this member, who was part of a government that eliminated the Crow benefit and eliminated other support for agriculture, can now say that the federal government does not have any responsibility here and we should not have the federal government Standing Committee on Agriculture come to Manitoba to hear first-hand what the issues are. Foot and Mouth Disease Provincial Action Plan Hon. Jon Gerrard (River Heights): Mr.

Speaker, my supple mentary to the Minister of Agriculture. I ask the minister when she will provide the detailed provincial action plan on foot and mouth disease that I asked for earlier, or is the minister proposing to do a handoff on this one, too? Hon. Rosano Wowchuk (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, the member does raise an important issue. He raises the issue of foot and mouth disease. Foot and mouth disease comes under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

I tell the member that the Manitoba government, repre sentatives from the Department of Agriculture and other agencies of government have been working very closely with the federal government and with the Food Inspection Agency to put in place a plan should there be an outbreak of this disease. I want to tell the member as well that there have been discussions with other provinces on how the situation should be handled, and Manitoba is as prepared as other provinces are. Mr. Gerrard: My second supplementary to the minister.

I ask: With the comments today at the noon luncheon of the Manitoba Institute of Agrologists by the CFIA veterinarian who just came back from the United Kingdom, Doctor Manns, that it is not a matter of if but when foot and mouth disease arrives in North America, when will the minister present her provincial action plan to this Legislature? Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the speaker that the member is referring to is Dr. Brian Manns. Dr.

Brian Manns, after making that statement, went on to clarify that he was not referring to foot and mouth disease, but he was saying that at some point we could have a serious outbreak of a disease in Canada. We could, but should we have that, that responsibility falls under the juris diction of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and our Government and other governments in- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh. Mr. Speaker: Order. Ms. Wowchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Should we have an outbreak of this disease in Canada-and I hope we will not because it will have a devastating effect on our livestock industry-we will follow the leadership of the federal government, and our department and the Province of Manitoba will work with CF A just as other provinces will. Drinking Water Advisory Committee Report Recommendations Mr. Harry Enns (Lakeside): Mr.

Speaker, with Walkerton still very much in all our memories and the news just recently that the three deaths in North Battleford were caused by crypto sporidium, it is understandable that many of our Manitoba communities are deeply concerned about the quality and the safety of their drinking water. The Minister of Conservation (Mr. Lathlin) accepted recommendations of the Drinking Water Advisory Committee in November of last year. My question to the minister is: Why has he not taken up any of the recommendations of that committee in the ensuing seven months? Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr.

Speaker, the member refers to the Drinking Water Advisory Committee that reported jointly to the Minister of Conservation and to myself with respect to water quality and water safety, particularly surrounding bacterial infections that were related to Walkerton and the colif orm issues. I am happy to indicate to this House that we reversed the policy of the previous government and will be providing subsidies to individuals up to 75 percent for the testing of their water.

1412 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 * (14:10) Mr. Enos: Whether it is this Government's press release getting rid of gang problems in Manitoba, press release getting rid of auto thefts in Manitoba, last November this Government said that safety of water was its highest priority. They established a committee- Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of Order Hon. Gord Mackintosh (Government House Leader): Clearly interrupting the member in full flight in a speech, would you please remind him, Mr. Speaker, that Beauchesne's says very clearly a supplementary question should need no

preamble, let alone a speech. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Lakeside, on the same point of order? Mr. Enos: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, I find myself in concurrence with the honourable Government House Leader except that I was asking a brand new question which then means that Rules 409 and 417 do not apply. I am now specifical ly asking this Government: This Government made a commitment- Mr. Speaker: Order. On the point of order raised, I recognized the honourable member for a supplementary question. It was not brought to my attention that the member was going on a new question.

So, on the point of order raised, Beauchesne's Citation 409 advises that a supplementary question should not require a

preamble. * * * Mr. Enos: My apologies to you, Mr. Speaker. This is indeed a new question. Mr. Speaker: A new question? Mr. Enos: Right. Last November this Govern ment indicated very clearly that water safety was among its highest priorities and would treat it as such. Last November they received the recommendations from the committee they set up reporting jointly to the two ministers. Today we are moving into the mid-May period and we have not seen any actions on the recommendations of that committee. Mr.

Chomiak: Notwithstanding that that was a new question, I do not think there was a question in the member's three statements. But nonetheless I presume the member is talking about the report that we received. One of the ma jor recommendations was to reverse the policy of the previous government and that was to not subsidize testing for private well owners. We put in place a process of tendering to labs, et cetera, for that facility.

The tendering process under the RFP process has now been concluded, and I believe by the end of the week we are in a position within a day or two, within several days to offer that subsidy to individuals to test their well water. Drinking Water Cryptosporidium Testing Mr. Harold Gilleshammer (Minnedosa): A producer in my constituency, Mr. Ron Anderson, has lost 95 calves this spring due to an outbreak of the cryptosporidium parasite. The parasite is found in the creek on his land, and that creek drains into the Assiniboine River, which is the water supply for the city of Brandon.

I would ask the Minister of Conservation what testing his department has done to understand this outbreak and alleviate it. Hon. Dave Chomiak (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, when the cryptosporidium matter came to the attention of health officials, the Chief Medical Officer for the province of Manitoba sent out notification across the province, also notification and consent physicians. We have also advised all of the water facilities, municipal facilities, et cetera, about the danger and asked for testing.

In fact, The Pas, which is the region and the area that is in most difficulty, is being contacted five times daily with respect to this issue. Mr. Gilleshammer: A question to the minister responsible for the environment. What testing has been done on this creek? What testing has been done on the Assiniboine River? What steps have been taken to warn people in Brandon of the danger of this parasite?

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANITOBA 1413 Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker as I indicated ear lier, all municipal water officials were contacted and advised to test. As I understand, all potential municipal systems that are involved have been tested with respect to cryptosporidium. I might advise members opposite that there is regular testing that goes on with regard to this, and in fact the notification went out to Winnipeg residents, I believe, in November of 2000 and there have been other notifications.

I understand that all municipal officials and water systems have been advised to test for it, and to my knowledge it has been negative at this point. Mr. Gilleshammer: This is unbelievable. The minister responsible for the environment, who is charged with protecting the water sources, has not tested that creek on Mr. Anderson's farm. He has not indicated any testing in the Assiniboine River, the source of water for the city of Brandon. Mr. Bill Patton, the university pro fessor in Brandon, a member not unknown to members across the way, has indicated that this is a very serious issu e.

What is the minister of the environment doing about it? Hon. Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): would like to thank the member for the question. Of course, the issue of water security is of paramount importance not just to the people of Manitoba but across the country. As the member might gather, what happened in Walkerton and now in North Battleford has served to increase the awareness of citizens on the issue of water.

I would like to advise the member that the information that I have is that the community of The Pas and area is the only Manitoba community that is on the Saskatchewan River which is linked to North Battleford where the crypto disease has been located. Further to what the Minister of Health has already indicated, we have alerted the communities to make sure that they are vigilant and that they are observing their water systems. Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, 95 calves have died on this farm operation. His own family has suff ered flu-like symptoms.

There is a real danger out there in the water source on that particular farm, that is, water that flows into the Assiniboine River which is part of the drinking water for the city of Brandon. This minister wants to talk about The Pas. There is an immi nent danger there. What is this minister prepared to do about it? Mr. Lathlin: I can indicate to the member that our department has conducted testing and we are currently awaiting the results of the testing that was done. Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, this producer has lost 95 calves.

This producer has had people test the water on his farm and it does contain this parasite. This stream on his farm flows into the Assiniboine River. You do not have to wait for testing. There is an imminent danger there. The minister does not seem to know anything about it. Probably he has not been attending those meetings to find out about it. Mr. Speaker, there is a real issue there, and I would ask the minister to get more involved to understand this problem and to do something about it. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation with respect to North Battleford- Some Honourable Members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, crypto and giardia are pathogens that are not killed by chlorine and require a functioning filtration system to remove them from the water. All prairie surface water sources may carry giardia and crypto. The two major facilities, Brandon and Portage Ia Prairie along the Assiniboine River system, have an active filtration and water treatment system. They have been advised to be vigilant and that their systems are functioning. Mr. Gilleshammer: On a new question, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The honourable Member for Minnedosa, on a new question. * (14:20)

1414 LEGISLATIV E ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, a professor from Brandon University has indicated this is a very serious situation. All of the references that have been made to other jurisdictions where this outbreak has happened have had filters as well. Will the minister of the environment be more proactive, do some more testing on that creek, on the watershed that goes into the Assiniboine River and become better informed that there is a real danger here and do something about it? Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Speaker, I just want to indicate to the member that he is not the only one who is concerned about the security of our water supply in Manitoba. All communities of Manitoba are concerned about the safety of their drinking water. That is why people are becoming so aware. They are going to lobby government every chance they get to make sure that the water in their community is secure. The member makes it sound as if we on this side do not care what happens to the communities.

I want to tell the member that he can take all kinds of cheap shots he wants, but we are committed on this side to ensure that the security of the drinking water of the communities are protected. Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, on a new question. Mr. Speaker: The Member for Minnedosa, on a new question. Mr. Gilleshammer: This is a very specific case, and he is talking about The Pas. The Minister of Health is talking about North Battleford. This is a real issue where 95 calves have already died, where the family has suffered the eff ects of flu like symptoms from cryptosporidium.

The testing has to be done in that immediate area. I would like the minister to become more proactive in becoming involved and to do something about it that will actually help this family out. Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, members opposite dance around. They talk about Portage. They talk about Brandon. I indicated, No. I, that notification went out to all of the municipal water systems; two, regular testing is taking place; three, residents are advised.

With respect to that particular creek, that particular family and their particular operations, I believe that both Conser vation and Agriculture are aware of the situation. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has ex pired. MEMBERS' STATEMENTS Dr. James Ross Mr. David Faurschou (Portage Ia Prairie): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today and ask all members of the Manitoba Legislature to assist me in congratulating Dr. James Ross of Portage Ia Prairie, who received the Manitoba Medical Association's Physician of the Year A ward.

The MMA's Physician of the Year Award not only recognizes Doctor Ross's contribution to the practice of medicine within the province, but also recognizes his dedication to his community. Doctor Ross is a graduate of the University of Manitoba and has practised in Portage Ia Prairie since receiving his specialist certification as a surgeon in 1974. He has been actively involved in many capacities with the MMA, including serving as president in 1991 and '92.

He has also contributed his talents to the Col lege of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba, which has led to Doctor Ross being recognized as an outstanding teacher in his field, receiving many awards for his abilities in this area over the years. Doctor Ross's dedication to his community has been demonstrated through his active volunteer service with the Good Shepherd Catholic Church and as a volunteer surgeon in Papua, New Guinea. He is known to all as a tireless worker, committed to his patients and his community, indeed a most worthy recipient of this award. Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of all residents of Portage Ia Prairie who have been the beneficiaries of Doctor Ross's continued efforts, both as a physician and as a volunteer working

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1415 for the bettennent of our community, I would like to extend my sincere congratulations on being named Manitoba's Physician of the Year. Mental Health Week Mr. Stan Struther s (Dauphin -Roblin): I am pleased to rise today in recognition of Mental Health Week. Increasing awareness of mental health issues through the declaration of weeks such as this is important in helping to remove the stigma which surrounds mental health illness in our society.

To mark this important week, I would like to bring attention to our Government's commitment to mental health renewal in Manitoba. We recently announced new provincial funding and programs that will certainly be a catalyst for positive change. Provincial funding has been put in place to support valuable mental health preventative and educational eff orts.

Through Healthy Child Manitoba, funding will be provided towards the establishment of a provin cial mental health resource centre focussing on reducing the stigma of mental illness and high lighting the importance of early identification and intervention of illness. The funding will be used for a Web site with accessible infonnation related to mental health and programs for youth and schools on mental health and infonnation to recognize and intervene early in mental illness. The Obsessive-Compulsive Infonnation and Support Centre will also receive funding from the Province.

Finally, our Government has also started to implement a program of assertive community treatment which will deliver treatment, rehabilitation and support services at the community level. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I am proud of our Government's initiatives in support of mental health. I hope that this week will serve to heighten society's awareness of mental health matters and foster appreciation for the work of those involved in the mental health field. Let us work together for change and let us make sure that every Manitoban is heard on this very important issue.

Thank you. * (14: 30) Vehicle Regi stration Fee Mrs. Heather Stefan son (Tu xedo): As the saying goes: The Doer government giveth and then the Doer government taketh away. Recently the Doer government announced that vehicle registration will increase by $1 0 as of August 1, and through a cleverly-drafted Budget this Government has ensured that Manitobans will almost have enough money to cover this increased fee. Due to the generosity of the Doer government's tax cuts an individual making $65,000 per year will save this year just over a whopping $9 in personal income tax.

The staggering tax cuts in the 2001 Budget left many wondering how Manitobans would spend the windfall of money they will save as a result. Now we know. The tax savings can be used to help pay the $10 increase in vehicle registration. Wow. Mr. Speaker, it is so difficult for the Doer government to return the hard-earned dollars of Manitobans that they had to devise a way to get those dollars back. While they tried to give tax relief on one hand, they tried even harder to get the money back with the other.

We have before us another example of the Doer government's unwillingness, or is it ina bility, to rein in spending and al locate resources where required. The Doer government offers Manitobans a tired new slogan, that it had to raise the cost of vehicle registration or cut health and education. I truly hope that members opposite believe this line because Manitobans sure do not. Thank you. Mile s Macdonell Antiraci s m Rally Mr. Harry Schellenberg (Rossmere): Mr.

Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to recognize the Miles Macdonell Collegiate student body for setting up an anti-racism rally at their school to mark the United Nations International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. I felt honoured to be the guest speaker at this important event and was inspired and touched by the program presented by the students. It was especially satisfying to have the students of a community this size recognize the need to take positive action against racism.

1416 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 The rally took place in the school gym with more than a thousand students and teaching staff in attendance. Several students and former students spoke about their experience with racism, explained what could be done to stop racism in Canada and around the world. Leaders such as the late Dr. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela were mentioned as examples of people who dedicated their lives to fight for equality and to stop racism. The speakers of this rally were well informed on the causes of racism and the effects of racism on everyone.

Racial discrimination, they said, can enter into all aspects of our lives in very obvious and very subtle ways. It can be present in unfair media coverage, in jokes, name calling, as well as discrimination in the workplace and hate crimes. The speakers, both current and former students, spoke movingly about the hurtful and harmful eff ects of racial discrimination for all of us. This ral ly was a most inspiring experience. Mr. Speaker, the Miles Macdonell students have shown real leadership in the struggle to fight all forms of racism. Thank you. Stonewall Sports Comple x Mr.

Harry Enn s (Lake side ): I would like to acknowledge and say a few words about an initiative that is being spearheaded in a community in my constituency. The Town of Stonewall has been fundraising since September for the new veterans memorial sports complex they are planning to construct. The fundraising attempts were slow to get started but once the facility action community team published a plea for support in the Stonewall Argus they were overwhelmed by a flood of donations. In less than one week's time $152,000 was donated by Stonewall residents for the new sports complex.

Part of that, only $52,000, had been raised. This is an excellent example of what a community can accomplish when they take an issue to task. A new curling rink, an ice surface, is something that the town's 4300 residents will be able to enjoy for years to come. In order to gain the town's monetary contribution, the facility action community team had to show council that the community was financially backing the facility, and they certainly did. I hope that same message is passed on through to the provincial and federal agencies that hopefully will come to the aid of this project.

Construction of the new facility would begin as early as this spring. I would like to extend my congratulations to the residents of Stonewall on their community spirit and unity on this project. I also wish them many years of enjoyment from their new facility in Stonewall. ORDERS OF THE DA Y Hou se Business Hon. Gord Mackinto sh (Government Hou s e Leader): On House business, Mr. Speaker, would you canvass the House to determine if there is leave to waive private members' hour today? Mr. Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to waive private members' hour for today? [Agreed} Mr.

Mackinto sh: Would you please determine if there is consent of the House to vary the sequence of Estimates by moving Education, Training and Youth from its current position to the second-last department on the list for Committee Room 255? That change is to apply permanently, Mr. Speaker. Mr . Speaker: Is there unanimous consent of the House to vary the sequence of consideration of Estimates by moving the Estimates to the Department of Education, Training and Youth from its current position to the second-last department on the list for Committee Room 255? This change is to apply permanently.

Is there agreement? [Agreed} Mr. Mackinto sh: Mr. Sp eaker, I would like to announce that the Standing Committee on Agriculture will meet at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, to discuss consideration of the agricultural resolution. I move, seconded by the Minister of Advanced Education (Ms. McGifford), that Mr.

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1417 Speaker do now lea ve the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Mr. Speaker: It has been announced that the Standing Committee on Agriculture will meet at 6:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 9, to discuss consideration of the agricultural resolution. Also, it has been moved by the honourable Government House Leader, seconded by the honourable Minister of Advanced Education, that Mr.

Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Agreed? An Honourable Member: Agreed. Mr. Speaker: Agreed and so ordered. * (14:50) COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) CONSERVATION Mr. Chairperson (Harry Schellenberg): Good afternoon. Will the

section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 254 please come to order. This afternoon this

section of the Commit tee of Supply will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Conservation. It was previously agreed by this committee to have a global discussion on the entire department, and once all questions were completed the committee would then pass all lines and resolutions. We are on line 12.1. Administration and Finance (

b) Executive Support (

I) Salaries and Employee Benefits $458,800. Shall the item pass? Mr. Jack Penner (Emerson): We have been discussing in the Legislature during Question Period and other times the water and water quality at water storage facilities and those kinds of things. As you know, the Pembina River is a significant contributor to flood events, both of minor nature and major nature in the province of Manitoba. The Pembina River starts in Manitoba and comes into North Dakota and then comes back into Manitoba via the Red River. I am wondering, Mr.

Chairperson, whether the minister has had discussions on the Pembina River and other contributing streams and tributaries to the flood events of the last 20 years and whether his discussions have included North Dakota and/or Minnesota in regard to what might in fact happen in regard to the International Joint Commission's recommen dations, and how we can initiate some further discussions with the partners in the Red River Valley. Hon.

Oscar Lathlin (Minister of Conservation): Before I g et on to the response to the question that the member is raising, I would just like to remind the group here that I believe it was yesterday someone had requested we have the Clean Environment Commission chair be present for this afternoon in order that questions respecting the Clean Environment Commission could be raised and responded to. I want to make note to the committee that we have Mr. Terry Duguid here, who is the chair of the Clean Environment Commission.

I am not sure if the member who was raising that issue yesterday is present here or whether he will be joining us later, or perhaps he never was notified that Mr. Duguid would be here for sure. In any event, the Clean Environment Commission chair is here for that purpose. With respect to the member's question, I would also like to say that when we started Estimates it was requested by the Member for Portage Ia Prairie (Mr. Faurschou) that, rather than going through line by line on a budget, we have kind of a general discussion on the budget. General questions would be raised and responded to.

As I said on day one, I do not have a problem with that approach except to say that, you know, we do not end up repeating a question two or three times because I think going that route would be wasting a lot of time, in my opinion. So I would, with respect, ask the members if we are going to continue with that approach, I would ask that there be some co ordination at least in the way questions are

1418 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 brought forward. I do not mind answering ques tions, but I think it is not useful to answer questions two or three times over. Let me respond to the member's question. We are currently negotiating with North Dakota on improvements to the Buffalo Drain. These negotiations or discussions have not been concluded. The International Joint Commission and the Red River Task Force looked at some issues related to the Pembina, namely the question of whether roads in Manitoba act as dikes on increased flooding in North Dakota.

This task force apparently concluded that this was not the case. In fact, they concluded that dikes in North Dakota, which they are going to take down, would worsen flooding in Manitoba. We have been talking to the federal government about involving the International Joint Commission on this issue. I want to maybe add, Mr. Chairperson, that a draft watershed management plan has been completed for the Pembina River.

The Pembina River Basin advisory board hosted a series of open-house meetings in November of 2000 to gain some public comment on its draft which was entitled Framework for Pembina River Basin Management plan. I understand the draft is under final review; this review will be finished in the spring. It should be finished by now, and then the plan will be distributed to the public as well during the same time frame. Mr. Jack Penner: First of all, my apologies to Mr. Duguid.

Hopefully, this will not take too much longer than two or three ends of curling might take us, and if it does then we will go out and find some ice somewhere and we wiii curl a match. An Honourable Member: What about extra ends? Mr. Jack Penner: We will talk about that when we get there; there might not be a need for extra ends. Hopef ully, it will not take too long.

The reason I raise the Pembina River issue is that for years, whether it was the Red River Valley Water Commission and/or other organizations, they have made it quite clear that eventually the southern part of Manitoba will need a secure supply of water. The Pembina River Basin is ideally suited for that. It has deep banks and it in fact would enco urage the construction of two major dams on the river which would be able to be used like the Shellm outh Reservoir is being used, to mitigate flooding in minor flood events.

It is our belief that it would in fact contribute to mitigating river flows somewhat during major flood events, although I respect the engineer's view that that might be questionable. * (15 :00) However, it ties into the whole issue of water storage upstream instead of building major flood diversions and/or dams in the Pembina or the Red River Valley downstream. We have the Roseau River, which has again an ideal site location for some significant water storage on the Roseau. If we spent the kinds of dollars that we are now talking about spending, of building a dam at Ste.

Agathe, to create another large lake during a flood event upstream of Winnipeg and causing huge flooding beyond what we have ever seen now, if we should have an event such as '97 and higher, the damage it would cause and the mitigation that would have to take place in such actions as maybe moving whole townsites, for instance, the town of Morris and Aubigny and those kinds of townsites, and the cost contained therein, many of us believe that we should take action that would store water upstream on the many tributaries and rivers and streams that are available there to do that. They are there.

We wiii again have, Mr. Minister, dry years when the town of Altona and all the villages and towns along the Red River will be screaming for water, and there will not be any. We are asking whether the minister has given any direction to his staff to encourage them to have further discussions with North Dakota specifically in developing a water source there for drought years and drought-proofing, because the town of Winkler is a major growth area.

The town of Altona is a major growth area in the Red River Valley and will very quickly run out of water even if we do nothing and even if we have lots of rains and not have drought years. But should we have a drought year, Mr. Minister, Winkler and Altona and St. Jean and Letellier and Morris and Aubigny and Ste.

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1419 Agathe, Rosenort and Carman, all the Red River-dependent towns in the Red River Valley, now virtually the whole Red River Valley, could be out of water. So I think it is imperative that we investigate the possibility of building those dam sites on that Pembina River to give us the kind of water storage ability that Brandon has now and the security that gives on the Shellm outh Dam along the Assiniboine. We could have a similar type of situation, would decrease the flows during flood events.

So I am asking whether the minister has had any discussions with his staff, giving direction to staff to enter into negotiations and discussions with North Dakota on that matter. Let me ask one further question. We know that the Army Corps of Engineers has held a series of meetings in April, and I attended the one at Pembina, North Dakota at the high school gymnasium. They did an excellent job of describing what actions would be taken within the next year and a half to develop a plan that would allow for the outflow of Devils Lake water into the Sheyenne River and into the Red River.

People in the valley, whether they are on the Minnesota side or the North Dakota side, that get their water from the Red River, the water supply, be it industrial or other, are as concerned as Manitobans are about the quality of the water coming out of Devils Lake.

Even though North Dakota has demonstrated that Devils Lake is a great sports fishery, in other words, that the quality of water in Devils Lake is now such that it will actually encourage fish development, sports fishery development, we still believe that there is significantly enough evidence that the salinity in the water level will increase in the Red River area. The reason I mentioned both of these, Mr. Minister, is I think there is an opportunity, because North Dakota will proceed with that project. That was very clear at Pembina, North Dakota.

They made it very clear that they would proceed if in fact flood levels in North Dakota increased and/or even were maintained at today's level, or the lake levels were. So we are apprised of the fact that they are going to proceed. Would it be possible, would the Province of Manitoba consider going to North Dakota, to the governor and to the Army Corps of Engineers, and say here is an opportunity? We know you are going to proceed, regardless of what kinds of objections Manitoba will have. You are going to proceed. They told us that.

Would there be an opportunity for North Dakota to demonstrate a willingness to participate, maybe even do the ma jor portion of construction on a Pembilier Dam, that in the event Devils Lake water flowed, that you could in fact mitigate the salinity by flows out of the Pembina which would be a fairly pristine water storage basin. Has the minister given any consideration to that? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, let me try to deal with the first part of the member's question having to do with the construction of dams for the purpose of the storage reservoir.

I understand that dams have been proposed in the past, but I also know that all of these have not gone too far, because the river that we are talking about has got international characteristics. Any proposal would have to go to the International Joint Commis sion. So far, even in the short time that I have been in the department, we know that the two federal governments have not been that willing to agree to a reference to the IJC . We believe upstream storage is a good idea, and I think the Premier (Mr. Doer) in the past has also said that.

We believe there is an opportunity because of a fairly new international watershed board on the Roseau side to discuss some of these options. I think if we do that our discussions would have to involve the federal government if we are going to advance any proposals with respect to these international rivers. I think the member is probably aware of that. The Army Corps of Engineers, as I understand it, is having public meetings on the scoping of an environmental assessment for a Devils Lake outlet.

As the member is probably aware also, we have made some strong representations, as strong as we could make, to this process. The Premier has made at least two or three trips to Washington, and I have accompanied him once there. I have also accom panied him to North Dakota. He has also been to Missouri. He has also gone to Minnesota. Our

I4 20 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 200 I senior water people have been doing the same thing. * (15:10) The representations that we have made have always been based on impacts, you know, that this outlet would have on the Red River, not just on the Red River, but on Lake Winnipeg and going up North. We like to believe that the outlet is not a done deal. I mean, I agree with the member that sometimes when you are dealing with these folks, you know, they are pleasant, they listen to you, but then sometimes they go and do what they have to do.

I also have to admit to the member too that I have been frustrated with this whole process myself . As I said I believe yesterday, I give full credit to the Premier because he has not lost any enthusiasm or commitment or drive at all in his endeavour to block the outlet. So we think that it is not exactly a done deal. The core process, as I mentioned, will take at least another two years to assess whether or not an outlet is acceptable. I do not think we would be willing to trade off a dam on the Pembina for a Devils Lake outlet. I think that would be probably giving in too soon.

I think we should go as far as we can. We feel that, if a dam on the Pembina is acceptable, then it should not be linked to accepting a Devils Lake outlet. Our concerns are not just water quality but also foreign biota, and that cannot be mitigated by diverting the flow elsewhere. I shall conclude by saying that it is not a new issue. I was, quite frankly, di sappointed that, when we took office, it appeared to me that the file had been sitting there.

There was not much of a trail that I could follow that would indicate to me that there had been the same level of lobbying with the American governments as we have done, but I do not want to go there. All I want to say is that this is an issue that has been there for a long time. As far as the Devils Lake outlet is concerned, we have spent and invested a lot of time working on that particular issue. Mr. Jack Penner: I have always been a great believer in one thing, that if you know a certain thing is certain, whatever it is, then do every thing in your power to gain the most advantages out of that certainty.

I am firmly convinced, after having attended the meeting in Pembina, North Dakota, that there was an absolute certainty that the outlet to Devils Lake will be built. When one looks at where Devils Lake is located, it is very obvious that it is within the Red River watershed area. It is not an area outside of the Red River. The overflows out of that Devils Lake region, the engineers will tell you, hit the Sheyenne River and hit the Red River. It would not be an unusual act to see overflow waters enter the Red River system and therefore be currently within our lake system.

So the biota argument out of Devils Lake and I am referring to Devils Lake, not Garrison ! would suspect would have occurred probably on numerous occasions previously. Whether it has or not I think, is immaterial.

What the Army Corps of Engineers indicated clearly at the meetings at Pembina, North Dakota, was that there was a process that had been initiated, which meant that they were going to abide and fulfil the Corps' scoping requirements under the national environmental policy, in other words, NEPA. and that they would be accepting submissions on objections and/or concerns or support during this course of meetings. Well, there did not appear to be too much objection on this process over what the Army Corps of Engineers was planning, and, Mr.

Minister, what they were saying was that they were giving notice of intent for EIS , an environmental study, on December 22, 2000. The remainder of the

schedule is: scoping meetings, April 2 to 5, 200I, which I attended one of; preliminary planning report, July 31, 200 I; public meetings, August of 200 I; draft EIS, February 2002; public meetings, March 2002; final EIS, July 2002; record of decision, September 2002; and initiation of construction, October 2002. I asked the Army Corps of Engineers whether the agreement that the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Gary Doer, and his counterparts in North Dakota had struck would not prevent the construction of this kind of a project, an outlet. His question was: What agreement and who is Mr. Gary Doer? I will ask the minister whether he can table for us the agreement that the Premier supposedly

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1421 agreed to or signed on to which left the impression with Manitobans that he would have to sign off on some document before any construction could take place. This

schedule of events that I just put before you would seem to indicate there would not be any need or requirement for Manitoba to sign off on anything. Can the minister comment on that? Mr. Lathlin: I agree with the member that the Americans are not all that familiar with Canada. I have, on occasion, travelled in the States myself , and I do not think a whole lot of them know even where Winnipeg is. So I do not find it surprising that a person at that level in the system there would not be familiar with the Premier of Manitoba. However, I am not going to loose sleep over that because I know that is how things are.

I do not even know who all the governors are in the States myself . That is just the way it is. If you believe then that something is certain, it will probably be that way. It will unf old that way whatever it is that one believes. If we act on that basis with respect to Devils Lake outlet, then it will certainly unfold that way. The outlet will be constructed, and the water goes into the Sheyenne, into the Red River and into Lake Winnipeg. *( 15:20) I should also say that the Devils Lake has not overflowed for, I am being advised, some 1800 years. The probability of that happening now is very, very slight.

The Corps of Engineers may sound very optimistic, but I think the ultimate decision will be made in Washington. The Corps'

schedule is based on absolutely no glitches, everything working according to plan. The other thing I can share with the member, Mr. Chair, is that we have many allies in North Dakota who strongly oppose the outlet. We have met with some of them, the last time I accompanied the Premier (Mr. Doer) to North Dakota. They do not believe either that it is a done deal. Those groups include people who live along the Sheyenne River, the Audubon Society and others. This is an international river. The Government of Canada has to sign off. Not Manitoba.

Finally, I would like to indicate to the member that Canada, so far, has been extremely supportive of our opposition to this project. We are not alone in this fight. Mr. Jack Penner: I do not deny that there are not some significant allies in the Un ited States. As· a matter of fact, I am quite aware of some of the people that are in opposition to Devils Lake being drained into the Red River.

I find it interesting, though, that the American government, at the same time as we are talking about they will have to get approval from Washington and we would have to get approval from the Canadian-or they might, in fact, have to get the Canadian government approval.

I find it interesting that the Army Corps of Engineers has been granted some $600 million over the last year to further study and construction, or planning I should say, further study and planned construction of both the Garrison, and I do not know how much of that funding is directed at Devils Lake, but I understand some of that funding has been directed at Devils Lake as well.

That would demon strate to me, a $600-million allocation of funding towards a given project such as that, is a major, major amount of money for the state of North Dakota and would give rise to some concern on this side of the border, north of the border, that some of these projects are in fact proceeding, although they might have been stalled and are proceeding at a snail's pace currently but might well be speeded up if and when drought conditions prevail and water is needed.

It would appear that the possibility of even continuing with Garrison and diverting Garrison into the Sheyenne River and into the Red River is a sincere possibility, if Fargo in fact is as short of water as many say they are, the city of Fargo, and Grand Forks, and many of the other small towns along the Red River, although some of them are not totally dependent on the Red River for water, some of them are in fact dependent on reservoirs such as the Red Lake Reservoir and others.

I believe that we have a true opportunity to sit down in a very meaningful way and demonstrate our opposition to Garrison waters in the Red River. I am very sincere about that. At

1422 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 the same time I think we need to recognize that Devils Lake is not Garrison water and Devils Lake is part of the Red River Valley watershed area. We cannot argue that. So, in theory, the biota that would currently be contained in Devils Lake would theoretically already have entered our water systems. I think we should not close a blind eye to that. For that reason, I ask you, Mr.

Minister, whether you have given instructions to your staff that they in fact enter into discussions and ask whether North Dakota might consider, or whether you are considering asking your staff to have that discussion with North Dakota, that we do some futuristic thinking on water supply, not just flood mitigation and other initiatives, but that we in fact give some consideration to long term water supply to those communities that have been one of the largest growth centres in Manitoba for the last decade or more, and the security of water supply, and that is why I raised the Pembina River.

It would do two other things. It would mitigate the small event flooding that constantly happens almost annually along the Pembina River, and now will overflow to a much greater degree into the Buffalo Drain, as well as the Aux Marais Drain.

You know that the discussions that have been held on the south side of the border on the road that is currently in place between North Dakota and Manitoba on the Aux Marais River and the culverts contained therein, in that road, and how some of the American farmers are suggesting that in fact has become a dike and an impediment to flooding and an encouragement of flooding on their side. I say to you, Mr. Minister, that we could alleviate all of that in most years if we encouraged the construction of the dams that I referred to on the Pembina River.

We have raised this with the International Joint Commission, and the International Joint Commission is not adverse to discussing this. However, they say their mandate was flooding and flooding only and therefore outside of their scope. If we encouraged Canada and the Americans to give the International Joint Commission broader scope, I think you would see a different reaction from the Army Corps of Engineers as well as the IJC. I think we need to approach it in that manner.

I would also suggest to you that if and when, I should not say if, it is when the drought will occur, where are you going to supply the water that Morden and Winkler and Altona and Morris and all the communities on the Red River will require? Where are you going to take it from? *( 15:30) Mr. Lathlin: I know I have been trying to follow very closely the member's question to make sure I understand exactly what he is asking. I believe the first part to his question had to do with the $600-million budget that he says has been given to the Corps of Engineers.

It is my information that the Corps has not been granted that $600 million. That is money under the Dakota Water Resources Act. The Corps is not the lead agent under that act, and Devils Lake is not one of the projects funded under the Dakota Water Resources Act. We agree that the Dakota Water Resources Act presents a real fret that Garrison might be next on the list to be built. But I am pl eased to hear today that there would be all-party support to fight that.

I think it would be unfortunate if it appeared that elements or some parts of Manitoba were seen to be supporting a Devils Lake outlet, because I can assure the member and the rest of the members here that the Premier has consistently indicated that we are prepared to continue a dialogue with North Dakota on Devils Lake or on any other water issues that may come about. We are currently doing this on the Buffalo Drain. We will continue to talk about these water issues, but not to do any trading Devils Lake or Garrison for a project in Manitoba that may be well justified in its own right.

There are many studies that are available on a Pembina dam, including one done by a technical group of the International Joint Commission. In any event, we would certainly look at those again, the reports that were done, because I do not think they were entirely supportive of the project, but we will continue to look at those issues. Mr. Jack Penner: Two more questions, Mr. Chairman, to continue on the Pembilier Dam, you know that the State of North Dakota has ordered the removal of the dikes that had been

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1423 built from Walhalla east on either side of the Pembina River. Most of them have been removed, which will give some cause for concern for Manitoba towns and villages on the north side of the border when high water levels along the Pembina come. The Army Corps of Engineers did a study a number of years ago on the cost-benefit of floodproofing or building dams on the Pembina to do some floodproofing.

However, according to the Corps of Engineers, no consi deration was given to any other benefits that might be derived by a large water reservoir or a couple of large water reservoirs on the Pembina River to either the Canadian side or the American side. In discussing this with some members of the Army Corps of Engineers at Pembina, it became quite evident that if they were instructed to, they would be, I think, willing to initiate another cost benefit analysis including droughtproofing and the economic benefits that could be derived from a reservoir such as that.

I am wondering whether you would want to instruct your staff to have open discussions, to open discussions with the Americans, North Dakota, and I believe it would be the North Dakota State Water Commission-! believe that is who the jurisdiction might be under-and the Army Corps of Engineers to see whether they might have a desire to do a further costing and a benefit analysis of dams on the Pembina and to include other than just floodproofing. Could we encourage you to have that discussion with the North Dakotans and the Army Corps of Engineers? Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Chair, yes, North Dakota did indeed order that the dikes be removed. We are currently talking to North Dakota about a plan for a replacement dike, because our modelling shows that removing these dikes and not replacing them could increase flooding in Manitoba. I would like to indicate to the member, as well, that, yes, we would be plea sed to talk to the American agencies about any new thinking there may be about a Pembina dam. Mr.

Jack Penner: One more question: The Aux Marais River and the road that I refer to right on the boundary, has there been any discussion, or is the department contemplating any discussion on any changes on that road structure or further water allowance into the Aux Marais River? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, we are not contemplating any changes. If I understand the project that he is talking about, apparently the International Joint Commission found that it had no adverse effects on the American side, so we will just leave it there. * ( 1 5 :40) Mr. Larry Maguire (Arthur-Virden): Mr.

Chairman, I just wanted to make a comment that I know my honourable colleague from Springfield will be asking some questions. I want, however, to say that I am pleased that the minister was able to get Mr. Duguid to be here today. I indicated that I would have some questions in regard to the issue of Tilston and the sulphur, hydrogen sulphide and that sort of thing there as well, and I will. I apologize that I was not here at the beginning of committee today, because I had gone up to actually see where the minister was and he was being scrummed.

Then when he came in they scrummed me, and it was not on the same issue I must advise the minister. However, my honourable colleague from Springfield has a few questions on an issue in his constituency, and I would like to tum it over to him and then I would proceed with some of my concerns in regard to some citizens in my constituency, as well. Then I think there are a few other issues, and we will try to be expedient and get Mr. Duguid back to his regular day job in regard to that. So I thank him and you, Mr. Minister, for complying with our request to have him attend today. Mr. Ron Schuler (Springfield): Mr.

Chairman, I certainly have some grave concerns about the Clean Environment Commission and its EMF report. I do have some questions in regard to some of the players, the process itself and some of the things that were done, who was involved. I do want to make it very clear this is not meant to critique other projects that the CEC has done, that they have undertaken or that they perhaps will in the future. In fact, I hope that perhaps the CEC will be given the opportunity to redo this

1424 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 report. I again do have grave concerns, and I will try to stick as much to process. Again, a few individuals I will be asking some questions about. My first question is: Is the planned expan sion of power towers in the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul a class I, 2 or 3 development? If this is not information readily available, can we proceed to the next question and just wait for that? Mr. Lathlin: appreciate the member's understanding.

We will endeavour to get those answers and forward it or maybe even at a future sitting here, we will try to provide the member with that information. Mr. Schuler: Does the plant expansion of power towers in the Rural Municipality of East St. Paul require approval by the reeve and/or council of East St. Paul? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, the process, as I understand it, is the licence is issued by the director of licencing. Mr.

Schuler: If the municipal council desired to undertake an abatement project to protect them from the planned expansion of towers, would the Minister of Conservation co-operate with them and give them his support? Mr. Lathlin: Unfortunately, the types of questions that the member is starting off with are, I am afraid I do not deal with that level of detailed information on a regular basis. I will, however, again make a comm itment to the member that I will get those answers written up and provided to the member. Mr.

Schuler: Does the minister consider the electromagnetic fields to interfere with or be likely to interfere with the comfort, well-being, livelihood or enjoyment of life by a person? Mr. Lathlin: In response to the member's question, let me say that the Clean Environment Commission held a workshop during the wintertime, in January, at which the unanimous conclusion of these EMF experts was that no human health problems are caused by these transmission lines. * (15 :50) Mr. Schuler: Does the minister consider elec tromagnetic fields to be pollutants under The Environment Act? Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Chair, the answer is no. Mr. Schuler: Was it the Minister of Conser vation or was it the Minister of Hydro who called for the Clean Environment Commission to act and present a report on EMF? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, the request was done in conjunction with Conservation, was done by the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro. Mr. Schuler: Under

Section 6(4) of The Environment Act, the commission is empowered to hold public meetings and public hearings. Why did this not take place regarding EMFs and the power lines in East St. Paul? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, I apologize for the delay. The Clean Environment Commission is also empowered under the act to conduct issue investigations. In this particular instance, the issue that we were dealing with was a scientific research review, and it was not necessarily tied down to a specific site location, so therefore the hearing route was not pursued. Mr.

Schuler: I would like to ask the minister: Why were no public allowed to attend, no public allowed to even listen in? Why was this such a secretive meeting? I mean, certainly if all this information was going to be discussed, why would something like that not be allowed to be more of an open forum, a little bit more transparent rather than held behind closed doors? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chairman, this particular review was more of a research review of the effects, and the results of that review has been released to the public. Mr. Schuler: Can the mmtster indicate who wrote the CEC workshop report on EMF? Mr.

Lathlin: As I understand it the consensus statement was approved apparently word for word by those EMF experts who were conducting the review, and the report was a

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1425 collaborative effort on the part of the Clean Environment Commission staff as well as those consultants who work with the commission. Mr. Schuler: I understand if the minister cannot table this information right away. My question is: Can the minister table a list of those individuals who were invited, not the individuals who attended, but the individuals who were invited to participate in the review of EMFs? Mr. Lathlin: Yes. Mr. Schuler: Can the m1mster indicate who decided which individuals would be invited to participate in the review of the EMFs by the CEC?

Mr. Lath lin: The panel of three people who are members of the Clean Environment Commission apparently were given the oversight respon sibility of this process and it would have been through that process by which the people would have been invited. Mr. Schuler: Could the minister just name those three individuals for this committee? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, apparently the three members of the CEC panel consisted of the chair of the commission, Mr. Terry Duguid, as well as commission member, Gerard Lecuyer and another commission member by the name of Ian Halket. Mr. Schuler: Thank you.

The Minister of Hydro requested an overview of the literature regarding EMFs. The Clean Environment Commission denied his request. Now I want to ask two questions. First of all, can the minister explain why that would have taken place? In the workshop report presented it mentions there are an estimated 27 000 reports and publications on EMFs and their health impacts. The review, according to the references section, looked at 31, though it seems not all are mentioned in the report.

Can the minister explain why the review neglected to examine roughly 26 996 reports or even a percentage thereof and who decided that all that scientific data should be ignored? Mr. Lathlin: As I understand it, to have gone through 27 000 publications would have been quite a bit of work, probably very time consuming, if not impossible. What was done was an expert was engaged to bring the

summary of those 27 000 pieces of work, an expert who I am given to understand was quite familiar with those studies, and apparently was asked to pay particular attention to the latest studies that were done. Secondly, he was instructed to pay very close attention to the latest study of 1999 that was done by, I am advised, one Sir Richard Dahl [phonetic}. Mr. Schuler: Absolutely, the minister is correct. Not all 27 000 studies could be looked at, but can the minister explain who decided that only 0.1 percent of all scientific data should be examined?

The question then begs to be asked: Does the CEC typically ignore 99.9 percent of data when it examines issues? * (16:00) Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, earlier the member was asking a question regarding the class of a transmission line. Apparently, the transmission line that he was referring to is a 230 kilovolt line. It is a class 2 development under The Environment Act. I would also like to add, Mr. Chairperson, if could, in regard to another question the member raised earlier having to do with abatement projects under The Environment Act.

Indeed there is a detailed process outlined for abatement projects under the act. Of course, I am not in a position to try to prejudge the process, so therefore I perhaps should not even be commenting on the acceptability of any abatement projects in advance. In response to the member's last question, the major recent studies, the ones that had the large sample sizes, were highlighted by Doctor Mandel. I understand that some of the 27 000 studies that the member has been referring to are studies that are older and out of date and have some methodological flaws.

Our public health off icials, who have apparently been following this literature for many years, apparently agreed with Doctor Mandel after a long discussion.

1426 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 Mr. Schuler: Clearly the CEC was set up as a quasi-judicial board. Members sat, data was presented, they were supposed to come down on one side. That was the report that was supposed to go to the Minister of Hydro, and, based on that, the Minister of Hydro then was going to proceed or not proceed with the project. My question to the minister is: Can the minister explain why a quasi-judicial body like the CEC would only examine one side of an issue? Should the CEC not examine both sides of an issue before making a decision or writing a report?

I would like to ask another question: Is the minister aware of any other quasi-judicial body under his jurisdiction that neglects to examine both sides of an issue before making a decision that affects Manitobans? I think this is a very, very serious issue. Based on this report, the minister then made a decision, and the CEC did not have the wherewithal to even look at a contract report. They only looked at reports that appease the minister's conscience. * (16:10) Mr. Lathlin: The review that was done by the Clean Environment Commission in this case was not, as the member says, a quasi-judicial process.

It was, however, a scientific review. I think I mentioned earlier in my previous response that it was not site-specific, it was called to review an issue in general. The review was not going to be tied down to any specific site. The Clean Environment Commission, I agree, has quasi-judicial duties as well as other duties, and that is to investigate issues. The commission asked offi cials from the Health Department and also these EMF experts to review the science and the literature. Their conclusion, as we have been saying all along, was very clear in that there were no known health eff ects as a result of the EMF.

I might add, Mr. Chairperson, that the Clean Environment Commission did not make the decision on the EMF. It was the health depart ment officials who made that decision. Mr. Schuler: Some of the comments that the minister makes on the record are borderline appalling. I know the minister and his govern ment want to hide behind the Clean Environment Commission. Certainly the Minister of Hydro feels that this is his opportunity to have his conscience cleansed. It was quasi-judicial because, based on that, the minister then made a decision.

They were to sit, look at the various reports and, in this case, only look at positive reports, come back with a positive report, and thus the Minister of Hydro could wash his hands of it. I would like to ask this Minister of Environment: Can the minister explain why the human radiation unit and the University of Bristol was ignored. Why was that selectively just left out? Mr. Lathlin: I am going to have to get back to that member with responses to the question. Mr. Schuler: I can answer that question. The reason why it was left out is that it might have been a fly in the ointment.

It might have reduced the consensus somewhat because clearly there are reports out that are contrary. The least the CEC could have done, the very least they could have done is looked at some reports that were contrary to the position that the minister wanted them to take. I think it is shameful that at least some of them were not even looked at, that they were not even footnoted and referenced. That is the least they could have done and not try to pretend that this is some serious review, Minister. This was a scam.

I would like to ask the minister, back in January, the Clean Environment hosted a public forum on climate change.

Terry Duguid, the chair of the Commission said, and I quote: "There has to be a co-ordinated discussion of this topic if we are able to develop sensible and appropriate strategies." He goes on to say: "Not only is this forum intended to inform, it seeks the input and perspectives of all Manitobans on this crucial issue." I ask the minister: Can the minister explain why the Clean Environment Commission has one standard when it comes to climate change, another one when it comes to electromagnetic fields? Mr. Gregory Dewar, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mr.

Lathlin : The member is characterizing our CEC process as being a scam. I believe the member should have a really good look at what

May 8, 200I LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA I4 27 his previous government had done. If he is looking for scams, it would not take him long if he were to research the track record of the Conservatives, the Tories that were in power at the time. It would not take him long to find scam after scam. I really take off ence to the way the member is characterizing the work that is being done by my dedicated, committed, honest people. In I996, for example, Manitoba Hydro, under the Tory government to which the member belongs, conducted a review of EMFs. Do you know how many experts were included?

One scientist was retained. The Clean Environment Commission thought at the time that it was important to have any expert's work be reviewed at least by peers, particularly our local health officials, who have not changed their minds. Since I996, they have not changed their minds. I know who was in government in I996. For the member to sit here, all of a sudden characterizing the good work that is being done by the Clean Environment Commission, the Clean Environment Commission has never been so busy.

And yet, when the previous government was in power, I understand the Clean Environment Commission was very inactive. Indeed, not one piece of work had been produced for nearly three years. I would suggest to the member that he be very careful with his words in describing the good work that is being done by people in the Clean Environment Commission. * (16:20) Mr. Schuler: I would like to thank the minister for whatever that was as an answer. The minister references a I996 report, which the current CEC did not even have a look at. Interesting footnote.

Following the reviewing workshop, the chair of the commission indicated he would provide a report to the minister, I take it, to the Minister of Hydro. Is this the report, or has another been prepared for the minister's eyes only? The report that I reference is the Clean Environment Commission Workshop Report: Review of Electric and Magnetic Fields, dated March 200 I. Mr. Lathlin: That is the workshop report. Apparently there is, as we said earlier here, there is a companion consensus statement that would have come with the report. I understand those are the only two documents.

I have never seen anything that was intended for, I think he said, his eyes only. Those are the only two pieces of paper. Mr. Schuler: The report indicates that extensive discussion took place following some presentations. Since the workshop lasted for only one day, can the minister indicate exactly how many hours these extensive discussions took up? Mr. Lathlin: I understand this discussion took place over a period of three to four hours. Mr. Schuler: An exhaustive, extensive period. The CEC commission reminds me of an East German election.

You just have to choose between I 0 candidates all of the same party, and that is what the CEC did. There were 32 reports that all agreed, that all took the same position. They just had to agree with it. I would like to ask the minister: Has the minister ever heard of the Electric Power Research Institute? Mr. Lathlin: I would like to again, at the risk of upsetting even more the member-he seems to be in bad mood today, but anyway that is always the mood that I see him in, so maybe that is the way he is naturally. An Honourable Member: You should see him when he is angry. Mr.

Lathlin: I was wondering what he had for lunch today. But let me make a commitment to him that I will endeavour to conduct my own research into this Electric Power Research Institute and see if I can get some information and give it to the member at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Schuler: Just on how much time was spent by this committee exhausting the various reports. At about three hours that would be six minutes per report. That is not what I would consider to be exhaustive.

1428 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 On the EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute is funded as a non-profit organization by the private hydro utilities in the United States. Is the minister aware that the EPRI funds studies regarding the health effects and health impacts of EMF? Mr. Lathlin: Apparently the member knows all about this Electric Power Resea rch Institute, so all the more power to him, I guess. I will just leave it there. Mr. Schuler: Would the minister be surprised if he was informed that the research of the EPRI dismissing health concerns like those from East St.

Paul is some of the studies that are funded by the EPRI? Does the minister know if any of the 31 of the 27 000 studies looked at by the Clean Environment Commission received money from the EPRI? Mr. Lathlin: As I understand it the Clean Environment Commission was not the body that reviewed the literature. It was, I think I said earlier to the member, health experts. I just want to say, too, that the short time that I have been in Conservation I have observed and seen how our people in the public health field are working. I view them as committed public health officials.

In view of how the member has been characterizing these people, I think I would be within my rights to ask the member if he has any faith in public health officials at all, judging from the way that he talks about them. Mr. Schuler: Has the minister ever heard of Exponent? Is the minister aware that Exponent conducts research into the health impacts of EMF? I will just quote from their Web site. It is an American-based company. It trades on the New York Stock Exchange, I believe-the NASDAQ, sorry. Exponent scientists provide advisory and consulting support to electric utilities.

Has the minister heard of Exponent, and is he aware of the fact that they do research into EMF? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Acting Chair, no, I have not. I thank the member for the information. I am sure by the time I am finished here, I will be just as informed and educated as he is. Mr. Schuler: Is the minis ter aware that Exponent receives funds to research the health impact of EMFs from the EPRI? Mr. Lathlin: No. * (16:30) Mr. Schuler: Is the minister aware that the chief EMF scientist at Exponent has a Master of Business Administration and a doctorate in neuropsychology? Mr. Lathlin: No. Mr.

Schuler: Is the minister aware that Exponent and its scientists provide advisory, consulting and litigation services to the private utilities in the USA when concerns are raised over high voltage transmission lines, electrical substations and power-generating plants? Mr. Lathlin: No. Mr. Schuler: Can the minister explain why Dr. Jack Mandel, vice-president at Exponent, was flown from Calif ornia to par ticipate in the review and workshop by the Clean Environment Commission-and, clearly, one would want to tum to Calif ornia, that cutting edge of knowledge on hydro-electricity. Why was it that Dr.

Jack Mandel from Exponent was flown in at public expense? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Acting Chair, I can indicate to the member that the person the member is referring to apparently has worked for industry, univer-sities and other research organizations. I also understand, Mr. Acting Chair, that Doctor Mandel is a world-class epidemiologist who is really a follower of one Sir Richard Doll. In this case, Manitoba Health experts reviewed his background and felt that he was suitable to do this piece of work here. Mr.

Schuler: To the minister: This so-called expert who helped facilitate the CEC report, is the minister aware that much of Doctor Mandel's research is actually focussed on colorectal cancer, renal cell cancer and breast cancer? Does the minister feel a specialist in colorectal cancer,

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1429 renal cell cancer or breast cancer is automat ically an expert in EMF? Mr. Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, yes, I understand that Doctor Mandel is a cancer expert, as the member has pointed out to us, an epidemiologist. He has followed the EMF for more than two decades, and that is whether there is a link between EMF and cancer. Mr. Schuler: So can the minister outline why exactly Doctor Mandel is considered to be an expert in EMF? Simply because he has followed the issue, that would qualify him. Mr. Lathlin: Mr.

Chair, I want to indicate to the member in response to his question that the public health officials, who we consider to be experts, was a group who agreed to work with Doctor Mandel. They found him to be very qualified, especially in view of his world renowned reputation as being an epidemiologist. The group representing our side would have been Doctor Fast, who is from the City of Winnipeg, Doctor Popplow, as well as one Dr. Harry Johnson, who was considered to be a specialist from CancerCare Manitoba on health and EMF. Mr. Gerard Jennissen, Acting Chairperson, in the Chair Mr.

Schuler: On Exponent's Web site, Doctor Mandel seems to have very little research experience with power Jines and EMF. In fact, one of the few references to EMFs in Doctor Mandel's resume is a presentation on the review of the scientific literature back in 1989, and, of all places, to an association of power companies. At that particular time, the member, Doctor Mandel was at that same conference telling the private American power companies EMFs were completely safe. That was in 1989. Does the minister not feel that perhaps since 1989, there has been a little bit more information that has come forward? Mr.

Lathlin: Yes, I agree with the member that since '89 there would have been further developments, new information. I believe that is why our public health officials were interested in reviewing the more recent documents that were there. Mr. Schuler: One of the members of the CEC is a Mr. Gerard Lecuyer, who was once the Member for Radisson and in fact was once the Minister of Environment from 1983 to 1988. In 1984, Mr. Lecuyer declared that, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. radon gas was not a scientific health hazard. When questioned by the Leader of the Opposition, then Mr.

Gary Filmon, evidence was presented that there was risk posed by radon gas. Mr. Lecuyer took no action. On June I 0, 1987, the leader of the third party, Sharon Carstairs, questioned the minister in regard to deaths resulting from radon. Mr. Lecuyer stated that there is no threat and it does not pose any significant threat. After Mr. Lecuyer left his office, the Filmon government was required to take action with respect to radon gas, since according to a 1989 government document radon gas was linked to 5 percent of all deaths from lung cancer. The concern clearly of the committee is: Does Mr.

Lecuyer, who was appointed to the Clean Environment Commission, still hold these kinds of views? Does he still believe radon gas is safe and that EMFs might be desirable? * (16:40) Mr. Lathlin: As far as I understand it, it was not Mr. Lecuyer who decided on these things. Rather, it was our public health. I keep coming back to that. It was really our public health officials who made the conclusions after they had reviewed the material on EMF. Mr. Schuler: A Mr. Shaun Loney, who is the special assistant to the Minister of Hydro, also participated in the EMF workshop.

Can the minister tell us what his role was and what his input might have been? Mr. Chairperson in the Chair Mr. Lathlin: I understand that this Mr. Shaun Loney, his role at the gathering was to be an observer. Only the experts in this research

1430 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 contributed to the consensus statement and not anybody else. I wonder, Mr. Chair, if I can be so brave to ask members here or canvass the members if they would be willing to do a short break? Mr. Cha irperson: Is it the will of the committee to have a short break? [Agreed] We will recess for five minutes. The committee recessed at 4:46p .m . The committee resumed at 4:59 p.m. Mr. Chai rperson: Committee, come to order. We will just continue with our discussions. Mr. Schuler: Just on the issue of a political staffer who actually was at the CEC, a Mr.

Shaun Loney, the concern I have-and I know he is not a staffer of this particular minister. I quote from an e-mail that I received: This individual also called Sh aun Loney and was told that he gets hundreds of calls a day from St. Paul residents complaining that they will not be able to sell their homes. Loney told them that they need to stop the residents' committee and tell Ron Schuler to shut up about all of this. It is the fault of the committee if you cannot sell your home. I find that to be a concern. I think people have a right to be heard even if we disagree with them.

Clearly that was not the position of the Government. It was not the position of the CEC. They did not believe that anybody had a right to be heard; thus, it was held in secret, closed doors, and the Government bought and paid for their whitewash report and they got it. I think it is very unfortunate that political staffers then move around and- Point of Order Hon.

Becky Ba rrett (Minister of Labour and Immi gration): I do not appreciate and I do not think the Clean Environment Commission would appreciate the fact that the member appears to be saying that the Government controls the Clean Environment Commission and bought and paid for the report. I think the member should choose his words extremely carefully. * (17:00) What he says in the House off the record is one thing, but what he says in the Chamber and in Estimates on the record is very important and is part of the public record.

He should pick and choose his words very carefully because even the slightest intimation that the Government controls the Clean Environment Commission or any report is totally, totally out of line, and I would ask the member to apologize for those words and to pick and choose his words very carefully in the future. Mr. Schuler: I do not think the minister has a point of order at all. I believe it is a dispute over the facts. The fact that the mtmster is of fended by something, well, that is something that the minister has to deal with herself and deal personally with.

I have chosen my words carefully, and everything points to the fact that the Clean Environment Commission was not a public process. Only reports that favoured one side that the Government wanted to see were done, and it is basically a whitewash report, and, yes, I believe it has been bought and paid for. But that is a dispute over the facts, and, certainly, we as politicians can go in the hallway and debate those issues, but that is not a point of order. Mr. Gerard Jennissen (Fiin Flon): I believe it is the same point of order, Mr. Chair, but I would like to add something.

Perhaps it is not a point of order, but at least I would like to point out that I am not happy with the tone from the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler). Now, perhaps we should be dealing with content and not tone, but when I hear language like scam, East German election, whitewashing reports, you name it, and saying negative things, pejorative things about people not here to defend themselves or not in a position to answer the mike, mentioning the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sel inger), Mr. Duguid, Mr. Loney and perhaps other people as well, I do not think this is the purpose of Estimates.

May 8, 2001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA 1431 I think the member should restrict himself to what we are here for, and that is get some detailed information about the minister's portfolio. That does not seem to be happening. I do not like the Cold War rhetoric. I think the Cold War is over and maybe the Member for Springfield has to be reminded of that. Mr. Chairperson: There is no point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. *** Mr. Schuler: Before I was so abruptly interrupted, again, I believe political staffers making those kinds of comments about a citizens committee are out of line.

I think it was in appropriate for Mr. Loney to actually have sent an e-mail. I would like to move on and ask the minister about some of the individuals that were on the CEC. I am sure the minister is aware that Dr. Margaret Fast, according to the Col lege of Physicians and Surgeons, is a specialist in pediatrics and community health, and Dr. Jim Popplow, according to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, is a general practitioner. I say this with all due respect: Can the minister explain what expertise a general practitioner and a pediatrician have on the health impacts of EMF? Mr.

Lathlin: Although Doctor Fast is a pediatrician and Doctor Popplow is a general practitioner, I understand these people are community health experts who do not just concentrate on pediatrics or the work of a GP, they also follow, I understand, the literature on these topics. For example, Dr. Harry Johnson, who, I said earlier, is a renowned expert, has expertise on EMF radiation and health for CancerCare Manitoba. So I would not be at all uncomfortable in relying on these experts for an opinion.

Again, I would like to reiterate to the member the review that was conducted by this group in reviewing the research material was not site specific, so therefore we did not require that we go through a quasi-judicial process, unless of course we were looking at a very site-specific project. Again, I repeat for the member, the people who were involved in this review are very credible health experts and they reached a consensus.

When the member says "bought and paid for," I think these people, in view of their individual expertise in so many areas, including community health, would be offended that the member has referred to them as being bought. We did not buy the health experts; we relied on their expertise. I do not know how else I can explain to the member, unless of course he refuses to accept that information, and in that case, I think no amount of information and inclination will change his mind.

I think it has become very clear to me that what he really wants to do here is to pose some very detailed questions to the Clean Environment Commission and the public health experts. You know, I guess I could say to the member that if I could answer all of these very detailed questions myself , well then, perhaps there would not be any need for a report from the Clean Environment Commission. So again, I would like to advise the member, if he is interested in talking to the members of the Clean Environment Commission, well, he is free to do so, or anyone else outside the committee.

As a matter of fact, I would urge him to talk to those people for himself and get first hand, right from the people's mouths. In addition to that, I would give him another piece of unsolicited advice and that is that he talk to the public health officials and perhaps get to know them. Perhaps they are not so incompetent as he has so pointed out here several times. * (17 :10) Mr. Schuler: I do not think the minister should go so far as to cast aspersions that they are incompetent. In fact, I think Doctor Fast and Doctor Popplow are very conpetent, and I would point out to the- Point of Order Mr.

Stan Struthers (Dauphin-Roblin): Mr. Chairman, the Member for Springfield (Mr. Schuler ) is exercising a little bit of revisionist history. The minister clearly did not say that those individuals were incompetent. The minister was saying that the Member for Springfield, and this is good advice from the minister, I must say, good advice to the Member for Springfield to quit casting aspersions on people who work in public health. The minister

1432 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA May 8, 2001 was also suggesting to the Member for Springfield that maybe he should do some of his homework before he comes in here and casts aspersions on people. He should have talked to somebody in public health. Maybe he should have talked to somebody with the CEC, and then maybe he would not have such a difficulty trying to get his argument across here in the committee today.

But I think if you would go through Hansard, take a look at exactly what the minister says, you will see that the Member for Springfield is only twisting the words for his own little agenda and that the Member for Springfield should be much more up-front and honest in the way that he is approaching this topic, which should be of some importance to his constituents instead of trying to play dumb little political games with it. He should have been talking to people in public health so he can get an idea of how this is going to affect the public health in his area. Mr.

Schuler: On the same point of order, this is a dispute over the facts by a slightly distraught collea gue of mine. Mr. Chai rperson: On the point of order, there is no point of order. It is a dispute over the facts. * * * Mr. Schuler: Thank you. I think the point that I am trying to make to the committee is that we have a document that says health and EMF experts, and I do not think that is quite correct. I have asked who the health and EMF experts are and that has not been made clear yet. Were there experts in pediatrics? Yes. Were there experts in other areas? Yes.

But EMF experts were far and few and in-between and to call it a health and EMF experts' report is going a little bit far. I just wonder even if Doctor Fast and Doctor Popplow were informed about Exponent and the fact that Doctor Mandel's links to the private American power utilities or EPRI, were they apprised of that? My question is-and I soon wish to come to the end-how much were Exponent and Doctor Mandel paid for his visit to our fine province? Mr. Lathlin: Mr. Chair, I will get that information to the member. Mr.

Schuler: Again, I would like to point out to the minister that I think the reason why citizens and residents of the province and certainly my community had a problem with the Clean Environment Commission report is the Clean Environment Commission brought together a group of individuals clearly lacking in EMF expertise. They flew in a colorectal cancer specialist from Calif ornia, an individual who advises private American hydro utilities on fighting environmental concerns.

They ignore 99.9 percent of the scientific data, and I guess one of the greater concerns we have is the fact that one of the statements made in the report is the direct plagiarism out of a Health Canada report. I would like to point out to the minister that it was almost taken verbatim, and perhaps he would like to comment on that. Mr. Chairperson: On a point of order, the Minister of Labour and Immigration. Point of Order Ms. Barrett: Mr. Chair, the Member from Springfield just said that part of the report of the Clean Environment Commission was a direct plagiarism.

Now we all know that plagiarism is an illegal action, and is the member suggesting that the Clean Environment Commission's report is iiiegal, under

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	37-2-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	37th 2nd hansardpdf 26.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	bd7ba9d7d13c24cb355871928630fd54f61028d8

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