Winnipeg Free Press

Winnipeg Free Press (Newspaper) - October 7, 2020, Winnipeg, Manitoba C M Y K PAGE A7 THINK TANK PERSPECTIVES EDITOR: BRAD OSWALD 204-697-7269 ● BRAD.OSWALD@FREEPRESS.MB.CA ● WINNIPEGFREEPRESS.COM A7 WEDNESDAY OCTOBER 7, 2020 Ideas, Issues, Insights THE CANADIAN PRESS/MARK TAYLOR FILE Former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall’s much-anticipated report will shape the Pallister government’s policy regarding Manitoba Hydro. Waiting patiently for Wall’s report I N October 2019, the provincial government announced that former Saskatchewan premier Brad Wall would take over as commissioner of an inquiry into Manitoba Hydro’s Bipole III transmission and converter station project, and Keeyask Generating Station. The cost of the inquiry was reported at $2.5 million. Wall took over from former B.C. premier Gor- don Campbell, who stepped down after only five months, for which he billed Manitoba taxpayers almost $600,000. This will be the second expensive consultant report the Pallister government has commis- sioned regarding Hydro. It seems the Progressive Conservatives are hidebound to find fault with the Public Utility Board (PUB), which approved the Keeyask project after extensive public hear- ings and expert testimony. The timing of the Wall report will conveniently correspond to the tabling of Bill 44 (The Public Utilities Ratepayer Protection and Regulatory Reform Act), which will eviscerate the PUB’s authority, diminish the public’s role in decision- making and accommodate large increases in Hydro rates. The secretive nature of this inquiry is in stark contrast to the Manitoba tradition of holding pub- lic inquiries. For example, another Hydro inquiry conducted in the 1970s resulted in the Tritschler Report. This inquiry was transparent and public, as are all the hearings the PUB conducts into Manitoba Hydro’s activities. In contrast, the public will never know who said what during the Wall inquiry, or if the report rendered by the commissioner is an accurate representation of what was said. There is nothing preventing the report from downplaying testi- mony that contradicts the tone of the terms of reference, which is clearly to find fault with the PUB and the previous NDP government. Why attack the PUB? The root of the Pallister government’s ire is the debt Manitoba Hydro took on to build the Keeyask dam – debt that was known at the time of the PUB review, and accept- ed by the panel when the dam was approved. Since taking office in 2016 and changing the Hydro board, this government has argued adamantly in favour of significantly increasing Hydro rates in order to pay that debt down. Their appeals have failed, with the PUB ruling in favour of those intervenors who argued for lower increases. Bill 44 will bring in a transitional period ending March 31, 2024, during which time the provincial cabinet can increase Hydro rates to any level. Public input will not be sought, and rates could be increased as much as 7.5 per cent year, as re- quested Hydro’s 2017 proposal and rejected by the PUB. Such an increase would fly in the face of the PUB’s expectation of a 3.95 per cent increase to pay for the capital expenditures. Once actual construc- tion costs, historically low interest rates and the new firm export revenues are considered, the re- quired rate increases will be closer to 3.5 per cent. Given that Keeyask is poised to become opera- tional, worries about Hydro’s ability to service its debt remain unfounded, especially in light of the new firm power export contracts with SaskPower. A reliable source advises that these contracts with SaskPower and other utilities in the U.S. will use much of the surplus firm power available from Keeyask and the inter-connection to the U.S. for almost the next two decades, and will more than make up for the loss of revenue from the cancellation of the Energy East Pipeline pumping station. They will also lock in a lucrative revenue stream, reducing Hydro’s exposure to uncertain spot market prices. The test of Manitoba Hydro’s preferred de- velopment plan, approved by the PUB, should be taken once Keeyask is up and running. Wall also needs to consider that in an uncertain world facing climate change, Keeyask and the new interconnections provide significant additional energy security benefits, regardless of whether the electricity generated by Keeyask is exported or not. Case in point: last October’s massive snowstorm decimated the southern Manitoban transmission grid, an event Hydro could not have anticipated or planned for. Every day brings a new story about the collapse of fossil fuels. Manitoba’s ability to take advan- tage of this sea change and the need to integrate energy systems with our neighbours did not happen because of luck. It happened because of the expertise, vision and dedication of Manitoba Hydro staff and board, whose development plans were rigorously tested by the PUB and a variety of outside experts. We hope Wall can see beyond his pro-coal, pro-oil sands bias and recognize the new world in which Manitoba Hydro must operate – one that is increas- ingly carbon-restrained, inclusive of First Nations, facing historically low interest rates, and aggres- sively switching to renewable energy sources. Should Wall’s report simply provide support for Bill 44, and should Manitoba Hydro start being carved up and privatized – a process that could start under Bill 44 — we will lose a tremendous public asset, and we will no longer enjoy the some of lowest hydro rates in North America. Lynne Fernandez holds the Errol Black Chair in Labour Issues at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, MB. Her new report: Manitoba Hydro Facing Uncertain Future is available at: https://www. policyalternatives.ca/publications/reports/manitoba-hydro-and- public-utilities-board Time for Manitoba to extinguish hookah HOOKAH has come into the market in Winnipeg and has been shown to be appealing to youth and new users. The temporary ban on serving hookah in public places is an opportunity to close an ex- isting loophole in legislation and put a permanent ban in place, consistent with all forms of smoking. While tobacco-control measures have success- fully reduced the incidence rates of smoking over the past few decades, there are new unregulated smoking-type products undermining our prog- ress. We would like to bring to the attention of Manitobans that, COVID-19 transmission risk notwithstanding, the health effects of hookah smoking are significant. For those unfamiliar with hookah use, it is also referred to as shisha, narghile, waterpipe, or hub- bly-bubbly. It is a form of smoking via a common instrument used for smoking tobacco or other substances. The smoked material is often called shisha and can be flavoured. The shisha is burned by applying a lit charcoal or a briquet. The result- ing smoke passes through a water reservoir and is inhaled through a tube and mouthpiece. There are usually several tubes per hookah, so a num- ber of people can use the hookah at the same time and socialize. Thirty-eight percent of students in Grades 9 to 12 consider hookah use to be less harmful than cigarette smoking, even though hookah use, as a study shows, is linked to many of the same ad- verse health effects, such as lung and cardiovas- cular disease. Use of hookah is gaining broader popularity in the younger generation due to the variety of flavours, affordability, social nature and accessibility of the product. As with smoking cigarettes and vaping, exposure to hookah smoke can cause serious health effects, whether tobacco is in the shisha or not. According to the WHO 2005 Study Group on Tobacco Product Regulation, “Shisha smokers in comparison to ciga- rette smokers would inhale an equivalent of 100 or more cigarettes in one session.” Studies have shown that some shisha is incor- rectly and deceivingly labeled tobacco free. Evidence indicates even so-called tobacco free “herbal” shisha can be harmful, regardless of the presence of nicotine. A study in Alberta found high levels of lead, chromium, nickel, arsenic and poly- cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in herbal shisha. These toxic trace metals and carcinogens were found in equivalent or greater concentrations than in tobacco shisha. Acute carbon monoxide toxicity from the burning charcoal can result in nausea, dizziness and difficulty breathing, and extended exposure can cause heart attack, cere- bral edema, coma or death. Furthermore, the air quality in hookah lounges has been shown to have high levels of fine par- ticulate air pollution. Customers and employees are exposed to second-hand hookah smoke, even bringing the smoke home on their clothes and skin, contributing to “third hand” exposure to family. Five Canadian provinces — Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador — currently prohibit smoking of all hookah products, includ- ing herbal non-tobacco shisha, in all places where smoking is banned. At the municipal level, major Canadian cities — Toronto, Vancouver, and Ed- monton — have all amended their indoor smoking bans to include hookah smoke. In Winnipeg and in Manitoba, neither the provincial smoking ban nor the City of Winnipeg By-law No. 62/2011 encompass shisha smoking in public places. Restrictions on hookah use, combined with public education to accompany the regulatory change, are needed to protect public health and hospitality worker health. In Winnipeg and provincially, hookah smok- ing in public establishments can occur due to loopholes in our legislation. We need to amend the definition of smoking within the regulations to include hookah to protect the health of the public and hospitality workers. Maryam Al-Azazi concludes, “As an immi- grant myself, I grew up in an environment that normalized the behaviour of hookah use. I have a deep understanding and I sympathize with the complexity of the culture intertwining with this practice. I have purposefully undertaken research on this topic as I am worried about the short- and long-term effect of smoking hookah. Understanding the cultural history of hookah and the medical science outlining the significant health risks of hookah use, I ask myself, ‘Is this risk worthwhile?’” Maryam Al-Azazi and Neil Johnston are registered respiratory ther- apists and are associated with theThe Lung Association, Manitoba. Contributors and signatories to this article include: John McDonald, executive director of the Manitoba Tobacco Reduction Alliance; Brit- tany Curtis, policy specialist with Action on Smoking and Health; and Amanda Nash, health promotion manager with the Heart and Stroke Foundation. Throne speech offers chance to reset agenda JUST as the pandemic has hit Manitobans differently, based on income, ethnicity, gender and more, the recovery also stands to be in- equitable as it unfolds — unless governments take action. For Brian Pallister’s Progressive Conserva- tive government, the return to the Legislature on Wednesday with a speech from the throne is a chance to make sure the recovery goes better than the shutdown. I have to say, how- ever, I’m not optimistic. He has let Manito- bans down too often the past, and his actions on so many fronts throughout his time in government give little reason for hope. Take, for example, child care: even before the pandemic, child care was not meeting the need, with spaces for just 18.8 per cent of children under 12, well below the Canadian average of 27.2 per cent. At the end of August, Families Minister Heather Stefanson announced the govern- ment’s second action plan for early learning and child care, reporting that that 21,000 spaces are currently operational. This is a huge drop from the 37,459 spaces operating pre-pandemic — a cut of 16,459 spaces in just a few months. Every missing space means another family hurting, and probably another woman forced, once again, to decide between her job and child-care needs. The fortunate ones can work from home and try to juggle it all. Many — often, those we’ve come to call COVID-19 heroes — don’t have that choice. Unifor urges Pallister to work with the fed- eral government to attain a national, universal child-care system, and abandon his ill-consid- ered scheme to hand over child-care dollars to chambers of commerce. As this new legislative session opens, work- ing Manitobans are still feeling the sting from Pallister’s austerity measures. Even as CO- VID-19 puts workers in precarious economic circumstances, the PC government has only piled on. Manitoba’s universities have seen an in- crease in enrolment, but that didn’t stop the Pallister government from cutting funding to universities. Our members in Local 3007 at the University of Manitoba have seen hundreds of layoffs in maintenance and food services. While some of that is because there are so few students on campus, others have been idled by funding cuts. Pallister once again raises the spectre of Manitoba Hydro privatization as he hovers over the Hydro subsidiary Manitoba Hydro International, while hampering the profitable venture by ordering it not to aggressively pur- sue new work. The throne speech gives him a chance to reverse this wrong-headed scheme. This is the thin edge of the wedge, and identical to the carving up of utilities we have seen across Canada. Hundreds of workers have been laid off since Pallister came to office, resulting in service delays and rais- ing safety concerns. It is imperative that Manitoba Hydro, which Manitobans built for Manitoba, remain in public hands. Going after working Manitobans is nothing new to Manitoba’s premier for the wealthy. His Public Services Sustainability Act, designed to freeze the wages of public-sector workers, was overturned on June 11 by Jus- tice Joan McKelvey, who declared parts of it unconstitutional and a “draconian measure which limits and reduces a union’s bargaining power.” Pallister continues to waste taxpayer money appealing the decision. All this, of course, plays into Pallister’s ill-advised pursuit of balancing the budget. Pallister’s kitchen-table economic approach to running the province has stripped funding from health care, education, the civil service, public transit and infrastructure. At a time when Manitoba needs more public invest- ment, this government has seen fit to starve the province. We deserve better in this throne speech. And while we applaud Pallister demand- ing the federal government put more money into health care and pay its fair share under the Canada Health Act, such a demand is disingenuous, considering how hard the Pal- lister government has hit health care in this province. The new throne speech will mean that all bills on the previous order paper will die, giving Pallister a chance to reconsider his attacks on labour – including Bill 16, which would privatize the conciliation process. The bill would have effectively killed conciliation by allowing companies to refuse to pay for it. Without conciliation — currently a free service that brings parties together to achieve a resolution — labour stoppages will increase. We would prefer to see the govern- ment abandon its anti-worker stance and instead, deliver a new throne speech that outlines a positive view of our province. Help Manitobans thrive during COVID-19. Aban- don attacks on workers, and focus on building Manitoba and building up Manitobans. Gavin McGarrigle is the Western Regional Director for Unifor. LYNNE FERNANDEZ MARYAM AL-AZAZI AND NEIL JOHNSTON GAVIN MCGARRIGLE A_07_Oct-07-20_FP_01.indd A7 10/6/20 9:11 PM ;