LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Tuesday, May 3, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

MATTER OF PRIVILEGE

Functions of the Office of Speaker

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. As is the case with our rules, I will be following it with a motion.

The matter of privilege relates to a very important matter for this House. It relates to the function of the office of Speaker, yourself, Mr. Speaker, and relates to one of the most fundamental aspects of your role, which is as the impartial ruler of this House in terms of our roles, in terms of our orders, and indeed the centuries of tradition that have established very clearly that the role of Speaker is one which requires the absolute recognition of the impartiality of the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on this matter because the comments that were made were not made strictly by a member of the Legislature in a general sense, but by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) of this House who indicated‑‑and I want to quote the words of the Premier because I think the comments are of grave concern to anyone that recognizes just how important the role of the Speaker is in this House. The Premier‑‑and I have just received a transcript of these comments today so it is the first opportunity that I have the ability to raise this matter‑‑stated: When the votes are taken we have 29, they have 28.

Indeed, it was stated in an interview and I will deal with that, because that is a germane point that needs to be dealt with in terms of consideration of a matter of privilege. I know the Premier may not consider those comments to be that important, but we in this House and the public of Manitoba do.

I think it should be very clear, Mr. Speaker, in looking at our traditions, the rules of this House in terms of the precedents, whether it be Erskine May on page 180 of the 21st edition or more germanely, in terms of Beauchesne which states very clearly: "The chief characteristics attached to the office of Speaker in the House of Commons are authority and impartiality."

Not only that, Mr. Speaker, and I want to cite not only Citation 168(1), but 168(2): "In order to ensure complete impartiality the Speaker has usually relinquished all affiliation with any parliamentary party. The Speaker does not attend any party caucus nor take part in any outside partisan political activity."

Mr. Speaker, the statements by the Premier (Mr. Filmon) indicate clearly that he does not perceive your role as being the independent arbitrator of this House, under Beauchesne, under Erskine May, under the traditions of the parliamentary system. The Premier seems to feel that you are subject to the government Whip as indicated by those statements.

* (1335)

I raise that in the context of some very interesting precedents we have in this House. Some members may recall, Mr. Speaker, on Monday the 13th of December, 1982, when members of the then‑opposition considered what they felt were undue influences that might have been placed on the Speaker at that time, they raised a matter of privilege followed by a motion which was then put to the House. In fact, it was Sterling Lyon who raised the issue and indicated at the time that their concern for a matter of privilege was related to statements that had been made by the then‑Premier to the then‑Speaker of the House in 1982.

We have also other precedents. One may recall the former member for Portage having made comments, and I believe you made a ruling in terms of comments that were made outside of this House involving the office of Speaker, because the bottom line here is, in terms of a matter of privilege, while under normal circumstances comments that are made outside of the House might normally not be considered a matter of privilege, there is precedent where those comments have involved reflections on your role in this House, the role of the Speaker.

That is why, Mr. Speaker, we are raising this matter, because in this session of the Legislature, as you did on Friday when you using your judgment cast your deciding vote, it was based on precedent, not any affiliation to any political party, not to any Whip imposed by the Premier. In fact, the bottom line is if this Legislature is to function in the way it should, it should be based on your clear impartiality which we recognize in the opposition, something we wish to see from this government.

That is why I would like to move, Mr. Speaker, and I move, seconded by the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen)

THAT the statements made by the Premier calling into question the impartiality of the Speaker be referred to the Committee on Privileges and Elections.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to table the transcript in which it states the particular quote: When the votes are taken we have 29, they have 28. You will continue to see this happen and I do not see it as being a lot different from other years.

That is the particular reference that is made.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Thompson for that document.

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, certainly the member for Thompson has the right to bring before this Chamber any matter that he considers to be appropriate. On the other hand, there is no question that in this particular case, the case that he makes is way out in left field, so to speak.

I acknowledge totally the comments having been made and the comments were a reflection of the fact that we have had six votes in this Chamber thus far this session, six votes in which the results were 29 to 28. Nobody in this House, Mr. Speaker‑‑and I particularly resent the member for Thompson alleging that you, Sir, have taken a partisan role in this Legislature. That is not something that anyone ought to allege. Everyone on this side of the House respects the impartiality and the record that you have established in an even‑handed, fair and balanced manner over this House at all times by the rules of the House and by all of the precedents.

* (1340)

Indeed, throughout the process the comments that I have made and the comments that have been reflected by your actions in this House are that you, Sir, will ensure that you act in such way as to follow the rules and the precedents that have been long established in the parliamentary tradition throughout the world, long established that the Speaker has in the past and on the precedents that you have quoted, voted to continue the debates or voted to continue the government in power in the case of a tie vote. That is precedent and that is amply demonstrated and amply supported throughout the history of parliamentary democracy.

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I would never, ever bring myself in a position to question your impartiality or your right to rule in accordance with the precedents that have been long established in the parliamentary tradition of this world.

I think it is shocking that the members opposite, particularly in the New Democratic Party, would be so shallow as to try and make an issue of this and that they have so little credibility and so little upon which to found their electoral position in this province that they would attempt to bring this as a major issue before the House and attempt, through their inappropriate actions, to try and call some attention to your actions and to try and infer some sense of impartiality.

Mr. Speaker, I just say that I know you will deal with it in the appropriate manner, and I have total confidence and trust in your impartiality and your ruling on this matter.

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader): Mr. Speaker, no one in the Chamber wants to question and impair impartiality of your rulings. In listening to what my colleague the House leader from the New Democratic Party is saying, you know, we look at it in terms of the media would quite often refer that the government has 29 members and the opposition has a combination of 28 members.

I think that Leaders of all three political parties have at times acknowledged that the government is 29, 28. We do not want to question the impartiality of the Chair, but I think at the very least, you could maybe give some caution to all members, whether you are the Premier of the province or you are Leader of an opposition or members of the media, that in fact this is a House that is borderline majority with a 28, 28, and you, Mr. Speaker, are in fact for all intents and purposes, an independent. Your decisions in the past have been based on precedents of this Chamber, and we look forward to you continuing just doing that.

* (1345)

Mr. Speaker: I would truly like to comment on this matter at this point in time, because there does appear to be a cloud hanging over the Chair at this moment.

I thank all honourable members for their remarks on this matter. A matter of privilege, as we are all quite aware, is a very, very serious matter, so I am going to take the opportunity to take this matter under advisement to be able to peruse the remarks that have just been put on the record, and I will come back to the House with a ruling. I thank all honourable members, by the way.

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

PRESENTING PETITIONS

Brandon University Foundation Directors

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Brandon University Foundation, praying for the passing of an act to increase the number of directors of the foundation to not more than 42 or not less than eight persons, of whom three shall be members of the Board of Governors of Brandon University.

Thompson General Hospital Patient Care

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Lucy Manary, Bob Gurniak, Sandra Quigley‑Jensen and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to request the government of Manitoba to consider reviewing the impact of reductions in patient care at the Thompson General Hospital with a view towards restoring current levels of patient care and, further, to ask the provincial government to implement real health care reform based on full participation of patients, health care providers and the public, respect for the principles of medicare and an understanding of the particular needs of northern Manitoba.

Government Promotion of Gambling

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Jeff Hunt, Chris Blaquiere, Carl Ross and others requesting the Legislative Assembly to urge the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation (Mr. Ernst) to consider initiating a full public debate on the role of government in owning establishments and promoting gambling in Manitoba.

READING AND RECEIVING PETITIONS

Old Age Pension

Request to Federal Government

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave to withdraw this petition. It was drafted by seniors in my constituency. I am to understand it may be out of order, but if it could be taken as notice.

Mr. Speaker: Is there leave to allow the honourable member for Thompson to remove his petition under Reading and Receiving Petitions? [agreed]

I would like to thank the honourable member for Thompson.

PRESENTING REPORTS BY

STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES

Mrs. Louise Dacquay (Chairperson of Committees): Mr. Speaker, 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 Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine), that the report of the committee be received.

Motion agreed to.

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table the Annual Report 1992‑93 of the Public Trustee.

Introduction of Guests

Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, I would like to draw the attention of all honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us today visitors from the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia who are visiting Canada under the auspices of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada and the Canadian International Development Agency.

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

Also with us this afternoon, seated in the public gallery, we have again today from Ness Junior High School, seventy‑five Grade 9 students under the direction of Mr. Baydak. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Urban Affairs (Mrs. McIntosh).

Also this afternoon, from the YM‑YWCA Adult Education Program, we have 13 students under the direction of Mrs. Nancy Kelly. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos).

On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you all here this afternoon.

* (1350)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Manitoba Telephone System

Layoffs

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon).

During the Speech from the Throne and in the document tabled a couple of weeks ago, the government stated: "We want secure and satisfying jobs, not only for ourselves, but for everyone who is able to work and who values the dignity of employment."

We have learned today that for the first time since 1932, Manitoba Telephone System has issued 200 layoffs to their employees working throughout the communities in Manitoba. This seems to go quite contrary to the government's words, and is even more concerning to us when you consider the fact that the Telephone System had a surplus last year, in 1993, of $20 million. It has a projected surplus this year of $20 million, according to the Public Utilities Board.

It seems to us, with all the unemployment going on, with all the extra costs the government is incurring over the last five years of welfare costs‑‑does it make any sense at all again to have layoffs in one of our Crown corporations? Will the government take action to stop these layoffs?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, if we look across the country, every telco is reducing the workforce. New technology, automated equipment actually requires less people.

In the province of Manitoba, although it is unfortunate 200 layoffs are announced today at the Manitoba Telephone System, over 900 jobs have been created in Manitoba in the telecommunications industry in the last year. That brings it to over 3,000 people employed outside of the Telephone System in telecommunications in the province of Manitoba.

The Manitoba Telephone System management has tried desperately to avoid the layoffs. They wanted the workers to take the voluntary 3.8 percent reduction in salary, in other words, 10 days in the workweek reduction program. The employees refused that option. That left the management with little or no choice but to exercise the layoffs.

Mr. Speaker, in comparison, in Ontario, Bell Canada asked the unions to take a reduction of 10 percent in salaries or 5,200 layoffs. They chose the reduction in salary to save the jobs.

Manitoba Telephone System

Layoffs

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the Telephone System made $20 million last year. [interjection] If the former Minister of Finance wants to answer the questions, I am sure we would listen to him. He is no stranger, of course, to layoffs and reductions in people working.

When the government introduced their capital tax on Crown corporations and was asked questions in this Chamber on April 21, 1994, about the increased revenue being taken from those Crown corporations‑‑we project between $2.5 million to $4 million at the Telephone System, depending on the application of the tax‑‑the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) stated: I would expect the two Crown corporations will be able to absorb these costs from within their projected earnings. They both are projecting to be above budgeted surpluses for the coming year.

I would ask the government‑‑given the fact that Oz Pedde had said before in October of 1992: Reductions will take place through attrition; nobody has been hurt by this program at MTS‑‑why is the government now proceeding to lay people off? Are there not enough people on the welfare lines? Are there not enough people on UI in Manitoba? When are we going to stop the insanity of layoffs in our province?

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is hard to accept the hypocritical attitude of the Leader of the Opposition in these circumstances.

The Manitoba Telephone System offered to the union that represents these workers a very simple way for them to avoid the 200 layoffs. That is, to accept the same solution that is being accepted right across the board in public sector employment in the provincial government, in Crown corporations, including MPIC, including the Hydro and throughout the public service, and that was that they take off the 10 days without pay and avoid 200 layoffs. The union leadership chose the layoffs, and if that member supports that, then he is the one who ought to be ashamed of himself.

* (1355)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, we have 200 people being laid off. They do not know who they are in the Telephone System. We have 4,000 people now worried, going home tonight potentially thinking that they may be the ones that are being laid off.

This will have a tremendous impact, not only on the families in the Manitoba Telephone System that are working there, it will also have an impact on consumer confidence in the province of Manitoba. It will ripple through as other layoffs do in terms of the purchases of goods that people make in our economy.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what action will this government take if there is an impasse at the Telephone System? What action and what leadership will this government take to bring the parties together to find a creative way to deal with this issue, so that we are not laying people off and we are not having further insecurity right throughout Manitoba in terms of the Manitoba Telephone System?

Mr. Filmon: Bill 22 was a creative way to avoid layoffs. It was so creative that it has been picked up by seven of the other provinces in Canada, Mr. Speaker, including Ontario. I have been complimented on it by other Premiers saying this was a good way to avoid layoffs; this is the way to save salary costs and avoid layoffs. We have provided that creative, flexible way to the Crown corporations, to the employees of Manitoba Telephone System.

If the member opposite really believes what he stands for, what he says he stands for, why does he not, as a former union boss himself, pick up the phone and talk to the head of the union and tell them that they can take all of the anxiety away, they can take all of the worry away, just convince their members, no layoffs as long as you take the 10 days off without pay.

Manitoba Sugar Co.

Negotiations

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, sugar beet producers in Manitoba are under a tremendous amount of pressure because Manitoba Sugar has locked out employees from the plant. Because contracts and seed are controlled by the company, farmers cannot begin planting the crop. Even though negotiations are breaking down, workers have said they are willing to go back to ensure that the crop is planted. They are willing to work while negotiations are going on.

I want to ask this government what steps they are going to take to ensure that the sugar beet crop will be planted this spring in Manitoba.

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Swan River is somewhat outdated in her information. There has been a great deal of discussion going on this morning. Myself, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism (Mr. Downey), the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns), the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) have been involved in a great number of discussions.

I am pleased to announce that I have been informed that the parties will be resuming negotiations this afternoon and that we have floated a variety of options that we believe may see the conclusion of this agreement, or at least offer parties, if they are willing to be reasonable, a means of achieving a process or a settlement that will allow the crop to be seeded this year.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the government recognizes the importance of this industry, because we cannot afford to have 275 producers put out of work nor can we have the people at the plant, some 160 jobs eliminated from this industry.

I want to ask the minister what steps they will take beyond this to ensure that the crop will go in. Can they negotiate and ensure that the seed will be in the farmers' hands this week so they can get that crop into the ground?

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member for Swan River is demonstrating the danger of having prepared questions and not getting the answer one wants, because there is a fundamental reality. If there is no sugar beet plant there, if the company closes the plant because they cannot reach an agreement, then there is no need to grow the beets. There is no need to seed the beets, which somehow she seems to be implying that if things break down and we do not have an agreement, the farmers should still go and seed the beets.

There is one fundamental reality here. An agreement has to be reached that is liveable by the parties who have to work with it, and all the labour relations gimmicks, all the different types of tools that avoid finding a solution that the parties can live with will mean the end of that industry.

This government is working very hard with the parties involved through our mediator and through other means to achieve that type of liveable agreement.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister did not answer the question. I was asking him what would he do if this did not work. He indicated that the plant might close. We are told that Manitoba Sugar may be using this as an excuse to close the plant in Manitoba.

Is this government prepared to lose that industry, this multimillion dollar industry from this province‑‑

* (1400)

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.

Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speculate today on what the motives are on either side. I cannot speculate whether Manitoba Sugar has another agenda or Mr. Christophe has another agenda either. I am not going to get into doing that. We are working to achieve an agreement that both parties can live with that will allow for a sugar industry in Manitoba for another season of growing beets.

Fundamentally, Mr. Speaker, every time members opposite come into this debate and try to extend in some way‑‑what other plan, what other plan‑‑and interfere in that process of negotiation and give false hope that somehow there is going to be a magic solution that is not on, they do more harm to the process. I wish they would appreciate what in fact is happening here.

Video Lottery Terminals

Social Costs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, for some time I have been asking the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation to release and table the five‑year plan of the Manitoba Lotteries Corporation which is done each year and updated each year. I have now received a copy of the corporate plan for 1991 through '96 and I acknowledge that it is not the most current plan, which I would invite the minister to table, but I do want to pick up on some of the comments in that plan.

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the minister indicated that to his knowledge there was no link between addiction, compulsive gambling and other social problems that people are facing. Page 16 of this report, which was taken to cabinet I am led to understand, specifically indicates that the VLTs will be highly addictive, and the major social consequences of this is the addictive effect it will have on certain segments of the population using gambling as a form of behaviour to deal with certain psychological problems that they have. The consequences could be serious for these people and their families in a financial sense, and the onus will be laid on government. That is the plan which was put before this government before VLTs came into place, specifically indicating that those with other psychological problems will be more susceptible to these highly addictive machines.

Mr. Speaker, will the minister now come forward and be honest about the knowledge that the government had about the impact of VLTs on those who otherwise psychologically had difficulties and were having problems?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, while I became the minister on September 10, 1993, the former minister and our government hired Dr. Rachel Volberg, who is the pre‑eminent psychologist and pre‑eminent guru, if you like, of these kinds of activities. She has the most knowledge of anyone in North America with respect to the potential for problems resulting from gambling.

We hired Dr. Volberg, expended a significant amount of money in order to have her analyze the situation as it relates to Manitoba. She determined, to the best of her knowledge and the information that she was able to glean and analyze, that about 1.3 percent of the adult population of Manitoba potentially could have a problem, result in gambling addiction.

That being said, in the state of Texas where there is no organized gambling, about 1.3 percent of the population there also have the potential to be pathological gamblers.

So while we do not, for a minute, think that there are not going to be problems associated with this‑‑otherwise we would not have put $2.5 million towards the Addictions Foundation of Manitoba in order to run programs to deal with potential and addictive behaviour‑‑we do know that it is a small percentage of the people who are involved in this activity.

Club Regent/McPhillips Street Station

Marketing Campaign

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, firstly, the Volberg report came a couple of months after they had installed 2,000 VLTs. Secondly, we have yet to see the full Volberg report. It is not being made public.

Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister.

The club concept which was used for McPhillips Street Station and Club Regent, page 49 of this corporate plan, specifically was done‑‑and I want to ask the minister to explain this‑‑in order to attract the low to moderate income patrons that electronic bingo at these institutions has become a fashionable "in" activity for them, it says, and they are targeted in a marketing sense, and, secondly, that the elderly and those who are in need of getting together socially, the elderly and the lonely, Mr. Speaker, would be particular targets for these gambling casinos.

Can the minister explain why they opted for a club concept with a marketing plan which targeted the poor, the elderly and the depressed?

Hon. Jim Ernst (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, I reject totally the member's referral to the poor, the elderly and the depressed.

The fact of the matter is that those facilities, Club Regent and the McPhillips Street Station, replaced existing bingo halls that attracted thousands of Manitobans on a regular basis. They were old, they were poorly developed and were in desperate need of replacement, with decent air handling quality and decent atmospheres. That is exactly what happened. Those facilities were replaced with new facilities with decent air handling equipment to provide for a clean environment inside and a reasonable atmosphere for those who wish to play bingo and who had frequented those previous halls for many, many years.

Mr. Edwards: Those bingo halls were replaced with clubs. The club concept has its own chapter in this book.

I want to ask the minister to explain why they went for a club concept with a marketing plan which specifically targeted the elderly. In particular it said, it concluded: The elderly in particular use the bingo club as a point of contact, often their only point of contact with other people.

Why has this government, instead of doing something in the Seniors Directorate, targeted the seniors and lonely people in our society as their primary marketing target for the clubs on McPhillips Street and Regent Avenue?

Mr. Ernst: It may come as a surprise to the Leader of the second opposition party, Mr. Speaker, but the fact is an awful lot of elderly people have been playing bingo in this province for a very, very long time. They play it in churches. They play it in community clubs. They play it in all kinds of facilities. We have provided in these two facilities now a reasonable, decent, clean atmosphere for them to conduct those activities that they make by their choice.

Victims Assistance Programs

Government Commitment

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.

Manitobans are now aware of three instances in the last few months where the government has refused to support victims' cases. There was the Ann Justice case, where the government, for failure to pay a witness, caused significant difficulties. Last week, one of Manitoba's most wanted fugitives was not extradited. As well, we understand from an article today, that an essential witness in the Desjarlais case has not been brought to trial.

Mr. Speaker, with the historic backlogs in the courts, with the reduction in funding for Victims Assistance, there is a concern that victims will start to give up on our justice system in Manitoba.

My question to the minister is: Would the minister confirm that it is a priority of this government that it pay $1 million for eight judges to not work rather than to allocate some resources to simple justice and victims?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member and I will speak about all of the services that are provided to Manitobans through our Victims Assistance line when we get into Estimates. I think he will be very surprised and I hope very pleased, as Manitobans are, by the number of Manitobans who are served by those programs.

He raises issues, whereas he admits himself that his research is done strictly through the newspapers, nothing further than that. He raises a case in which today he did his research through the newspaper, but the member should know that the newspapers do not always report all of the information.

In this case, the individual who was reportedly required to be here did not have unique knowledge of the case, Mr. Speaker. That individual was seen as an expert witness. In that case, there was another expert who was available to the Crown in this province.

* (1410)

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, I suggest to the minister that if she is concerned about Victims Assistance, which is not the case according to the Estimates, Mr. Speaker, she make sure that the victim's case‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. First of all, I would like to remind the honourable member, this is not a time for debate.

The honourable member for St. Johns, with your question, please, sir.

Mr. Mackintosh: My simple question to the minister is: Will she confirm that, because the government is spending $1 million on eight judges this year, there will be less money available to bring witnesses to trial and bring the accused to justice?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, and the member will find out. When we get into the discussion of Victims Assistance, he will find out exactly how many individuals again have been helped. I will also be able to talk to him then about the very substantial amount of money which is spent by Prosecutions to see cases through the courts.

I am also very happy to table a page of the decision which came down in the highest court of Manitoba, the Court of Appeal, and the justices in that case said, nor are we satisfied that the case against the accused, even bolstered by the evidence of Dr. Ross, would be any stronger. The member is wrong.

Mr. Mackintosh: Well, in that case, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to confirm this.

Will she confirm to the House that two senior support positions in the Prosecutions branch have been done away with? Is that the kind of support that victims are getting in this province?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, the member is referring to a personnel office in which staff have been redeployed. When we get to the Estimates of the Department of Justice, I will be very happy to speak about those.

However, Mr. Speaker, the member has mentioned an early retirement package offer‑‑and I just want to take him back to the days when the NDP were in government, the former Attorney General‑‑at that time prior to October 1987, there was an early retirement package offered which entitled judges to one week for each week of service to a maximum of 15 weeks.

But the Attorney General of the day, the Attorney General, a member of the New Democratic Party, who was in government at the time, changed that. In fact, he made an offer to the judges which said: I am very pleased to inform you that cabinet has approved a different method for the determination of compensation for the provincial judiciary. We have also improved an enhancement of the retirement benefit which will be available to all provincial judges. The temporary retirement benefit adds an additional two and a half weeks of salary to a maximum of 52 weeks for every year of service to the existing entitlement‑‑the exact same offer which is being made.

Mr. Speaker, I will be more than happy to table the letter that was written to Judge Charles Rubin, signed by the Attorney General of the day, Vic Schroeder.

Deputy Minister of Health

Salary

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last year according to the government's Supplementary Estimates, the Deputy Minister of Health earned $102,400. This year, he is getting a raise and is going to be paid $106,700, an increase of $4,300 or over 4 percent of salaries.

How, in these times of bed cuts, nurse layoffs, user fees, high‑priced consultants, can this minister justify an increase of this kind to the salary of the deputy minister?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, as I told the honourable member yesterday as we discussed this matter as we reviewed‑‑

Hon. Gary Filmon (Premier): We did not have any media there, though.

Mr. McCrae: No, no media there, Premier.

We discussed this matter in review of the Estimates. The Deputy Minister of Health is treated no differently than any other civil servant working for the government. If there is an increase from one level to another level, that is exactly the same treatment as any other civil servant. Deputy ministers are also affected by measures like Bill 22, exactly like any other civil servant.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, and exactly like every other civil servant, in 1992‑93, the deputy minister was paid $94,600 and yet this year his salary is increased to $106,000 which is over a $10,000 increase, well over 10 percent.

Is that the way the average civil servant in Manitoba is treated, particularly in light of 200 layoffs at MTS today and other cutbacks of this government? How can this minister justify that?

Mr. McCrae: It is my understanding that Bill 22 has saved hundreds of people from being laid off in Manitoba. That is why I supported that legislation, because I do not like seeing people being laid off.

The honourable member and his Leader today are suggesting that we should be criticized for layoffs when their union colleagues, the ones they seem to be speaking for when they come to this place, support that approach. I am hoping that unions in this province will be mindful of the fact that layoffs are the last option that we would like to use as government.

I can only repeat what I said yesterday when I had the deputy minister at my elbow who was able to confirm also that his treatment has been no different from the treatment accorded anybody under his supervision or in the government.

Mr. Chomiak: How can the minister not admit that this sends a very, very bad message out to the thousands of health care workers and other dedicated people in the system who have seen cuts and layoffs on a massive scale? How can the minister state, with any kind of integrity, that this is a normal process when the deputy minister has seen a massive increase of 10 percent in his salary at this time and era?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I am not accepting the numbers that the honourable member is quoting. The budget documents show certain numbers. The honourable member raised this question yesterday, and I thought we came to the conclusion of it.

The honourable member knows that there are people who work for the civil service who move from one step in a classification to another based on merit. That is not new. I think the numbers in the budget reflect that for the Deputy Minister of Health.

In addition to that, any impact of Bill 22 that other civil servants might experience is exactly the same impact that the Deputy Minister of Health will experience.

Municipal Board

Review of Gimli Project

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Speaker, a number of days ago I asked the Minister of Rural Development to reverse his decision on a hearing for the creation of 10 jobs and construction to begin in Gimli.

There have been some unfortunate consequences to this, including a headline in the Interlake Spectator, which says, Gimli MLA is not doing his job. This is an unfortunate headline because the person who is not doing his job is the Minister of Rural Development.

My question to the Minister of Rural Development is: Will he now, after hearing from many, many constituents in Gimli, people involved in the business community as well as the proprietors of Chudd's Chrysler, overturn his decision and not require a hearing based on two Conservative supporters who have interfered in this process?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, you know it is unfortunate that the member for Flin Flon is not satisfied with following a process. Instead, he would rather have someone interfere politically and then he would come back to this House and say, well, why did you make that decision on your own if there is a process to follow?

We do have a process to follow, and that is, if there are interveners in a situation where there is a subdivision case, then it is only natural that we would allow an independent body to rule on that issue, an independent body that has been selected for that purpose.

Both parties have lawyers in this case, and they are presenting their case to the Municipal Board on the 26th, I believe, of this month. At that time, this matter will be dealt with by the Municipal Board.

* (1420)

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Rural Development prepared to sacrifice the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer) simply to satisfy his own ego?

My question is: Will he, given the fact that he has the discretion, either to call or to dismiss any appeal, and given the fact that this appeal is not supported by anyone else in the community, will he finally do the right thing, let the MLA for Gimli off the hook, and let the people who want to create jobs there get on with the business?

An Honourable Member: Oh, oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We have lots of time left. The honourable member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) will have an opportunity yet.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, all of a sudden the member for Flin Flon has become the so‑called defender of my colleague the member for Gimli (Mr. Helwer). The reality is, I do not believe the member for Gimli wants the member for Flin Flon to be defending him in this case.

Mr. Speaker, we will follow the correct process, a process that has been a long‑standing one and has been established in this province for many, many cases. Both parties know what the process is. Indeed, it is my responsibility, when there is an intervener, as minister to refer that matter to the Municipal Board, which I have done, and that hearing will be held, I believe, on the 26th of this month.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, we so often hear about the government's desire to create jobs in Manitoba.

Can the minister tell us how long this process will take, and whether the individuals, the proponents of this project, are going to be able to begin the process by this spring so they will have the jobs available for the people in Gimli before this government's mandate runs out and the government has some integrity and does the right thing?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Speaker, I find this a little bit incredible, you know. The member wants the government to follow all processes. As a matter of fact, the member for Selkirk (Mr. Dewar) raised an issue with regard to some article in a newspaper and said it is political interference by the Minister of Rural Development.

Well, in this particular case, we are following the letter of the law, and both parties understand the process. We have been in touch with both members in this particular dispute, and the hearing has been set, I believe, for the 26th of this month.

That will still give ample time, if the subdivision is approved, for the party to go ahead with the construction and the creation of the employment that is going to happen as a result of this development.

Manitoba Telephone System

Layoffs

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the Manitoba Telephone System or the Premier (Mr. Filmon), whomever would choose to answer.

In some kind of cruel irony, four days ago, the chairman of Manitoba Telephone System, Mr. Tom Stefanson, wrote me in response to a letter I had sent to him, and gloated about the profit picture for MTS, saying, let me quote: MTS's net income for 1993 has increased to $20 million from $6 million in 1992. The improved net income in 1993 results, to a large extent, from productivity improvements and reductions in operation expenses totalling $10 million.

Mr. Speaker, in addition in this letter, Mr. Stefanson indicates that the expected impact of the new capital tax will be somewhat less than $3 million.

My question for the minister responsible: Why, with glowing economic scenarios from the chairman being sent out around the‑‑they went from $6 million to $20 million in one year. Why are they laying off 200 Manitobans, which will only be a drain on our government revenues as they go onto unemployment insurance and welfare, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister responsible for the administration of The Manitoba Telephone Act): Mr. Speaker, yes, it is very encouraging that MTS increased their net revenue from $6 million to $20 million, but over the last five years that we have been in government, the average per year has been $23 million, so there have been better years and there have been tougher years.

Mr. Speaker, MTS is doing a very good job of fiscally managing that corporation so they can stay in the vicinity of $20 million to $23 million per year.

The member mentions the corporate capital tax. I want to remind him that Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia‑‑you notice that British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Ontario all have the corporate capital tax, and it puts MTS on a level playing field with the private sector with whom they are competing.

As I mentioned earlier, MTS management negotiated with the unions and said, we need to save this on our bottom line in terms of expense; we are prepared to offer you the opportunity of saving your jobs by taking the voluntary days off.

They chose to say no. We did everything possible, MTS and the government, to be sure the jobs were not lost. We expected them to take the same decision as they did in Ontario, take the voluntary time off to save the jobs. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, MTS is still open to those unions coming back and saying, we are prepared to accept the voluntary days off to save the jobs.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we have the chairman now saying it is approximately $3 million, a cost that is relative to that capital tax.

What is the corporation going to save from the 200 layoffs, do they consider, and how does that relate to the $3 million? Can the minister indicate what the saving is going to be this year as a result of those 200 layoffs?

Mr. Findlay: Mr. Speaker, the corporation was looking at saving on their bottom line around $3.5 million this year.

The member always wants to argue and say, make the ratepayer pay more. That is what he argues. He does not argue in favour of saving costs, which every company and every government across this country is doing.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, they just loaded exactly that same amount of money onto this utility.

Manitoba Hydro

Capital Tax

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): My final question is for the Minister responsible for Manitoba Hydro.

Just yesterday I got a letter from the chairman of Manitoba Hydro, Mr. McCallum, and he indicated there was $12 million as a result of that capital tax.

What can we expect? What can the people of Manitoba Hydro expect in the future for them, given that MTS, with the new $3‑million taxes, tried to save the $3 million by laying off employees? What is Manitoba Hydro going to do? Will the government be forthright about their plans today?

Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I think with the two numbers that the Leader of the second opposition party has just outlined, the $3 million from MTS and the $12 million from Manitoba Hydro, he has confirmed the amount that we did, in fact, include in the budget.

When asked that question here in the House, we indicated to him that we do not expect any impact on Manitoba Hydro. They have their rates set for the next two years. As he well knows, they have their rates set for the next two years at 1.2 percent overall increase, so certainly in the short term, no impact.

I am not sure how much detail the letter goes into that he has received, but, certainly, the feedback I have heard is in a multimillion‑dollar corporation with hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue, that they do not expect the corporation capital tax to have any impact on rates, Mr. Speaker.

Sugar Beet Industry

Status

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to hear today about the potential for a return to mediation at the Manitoba Sugar plant and also to hear that, as yet, no layoff notices have been received. The dispute in this important Manitoba industry has a familiar ring to it. The same type of eleventh hour negotiation and brinkmanship has occurred on a regular basis to the detriment of all sectors of this industry.

In 1991, the then‑Minister of Agriculture claimed to be discussing long‑term issues of a national sugar policy. In 1993, the present Minister of Finance claimed he was working with all elements of the industry to see if there is a solution.

I want to ask the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism what evidence there is of any progress made by his government in the last four years over the long‑term issues facing this important Manitoba industry.

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, unlike the beef‑packing industry that was lost under the former NDP government, we are pleased that there are still negotiations being carried on. Unfortunately, they are last‑minute discussions and negotiations, but the industry has operated over the past four years, and it is our objective to get the groups back in a positive way to operating on a long‑term basis.

We are hopeful that the negotiations today will resolve the impasse and that we can get on to that longer‑term objective.

Trade Issues

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, the company officials have expressed great concerns about the unfair conditions of trade with the United States.

I want to ask the same minister, again, what steps he has taken to deal with those outstanding issues. Has he, for example, spoken to the new federal government about trade issues in the sugar industry of Manitoba? Will he table for us an account of those discussions?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, this government, under the leadership of this Premier (Mr. Filmon), has been extremely strong on trade activities as it relates to the products and the manufacturing goods and the produce of Manitoba.

Specifically dealing with sugar, no, there have not been specific meetings held on that, but there have been in a general way discussions as to how we can improve the trade with Manitoba products and with the other jurisdictions.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I can tell the House that next week we have a Ministers of Trade meeting right here in this Legislative Building as it relates to internal trade of which I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss the sugar trade, as well.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

* (1430)

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

203rd Anniversary of Polish Constitution

Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): I wonder, Mr. Speaker, would I have leave for a nonpolitical statement?

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Reimer: Mr. Speaker, May 3 is the 203rd anniversary of the passing of the constitution of Poland. In common with Poles around the world, our Polish community will be celebrating the enactment of its constitution. Along with the American constitution of 1787 and the constitution of the revolution of France of 1791, the Polish constitution of 1791 is regarded as one of the most outstanding achievements of the 18th Century.

The importance of the constitution of the 3rd of May was more than its provisions of judicial and legislative principles. Its enactment provided a fundamental moral sense for the Polish people. The principles enunciated in the beacon of democracy have been praised and emulated around the world for just over two centuries and have served to instill faith and hope in the Polish people throughout the almost insurmountable barriers and tragedies that they have endured so long.

Also, Mr. Speaker, this year is particularly significant because of the 203rd anniversary of Kosciusko's insurrection.

I know that all members of this House will join with me in extending best wishes to our friends in the Polish community as they recognize and celebrate this historic event. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I, too, join, on behalf of the members on this side of the House, in celebrating the anniversary of the May 3 constitution.

I certainly join in the comments of the member for Niakwa when he indicated the great strength and the history of this particular document. It is a historical document that has been emulated in many, many countries and many times throughout history and has served as a beacon of hope for the Polish people throughout some very difficult and trying times in their history.

Always this constitution served as a hallmark and a shining beacon of democracy and of rights and attitudes, of respecting individuals and others. It certainly has served as a basis for many other documents, and indeed there is certainly an example in terms of the functioning and the historical nature of this constitution that we in this country can learn from, Mr. Speaker.

I join with all members of this House in commemorating the Polish people for this outstanding achievement. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I will join my colleagues in their recognition of this event. The Polish community should be very pleased with this event. The contribution of the Polish people of this world has helped all of humanity, and I think we should recognize this event. Thank you.

* (1440)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House Business

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, firstly, on a couple of matters of House business. Today, we will be dealing again in Estimates. The Executive Council Estimates having been completed last evening, we will today have Health revert to the Chamber and Rural Development will be in Room 255.

Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will be dealing with second readings of at least the four bills shown on the Order Paper. If there is time permitting following that, we will also revert to the Estimates of the Department of Health and the Department of Rural Development.

So, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ducharme), 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.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank the honourable government House leader for that information.

Okay, now we are bringing Health back into the Chamber, and at several previous sessions during Estimates consideration, the House has permitted opposition critics to be seated in the front row in the Chamber while the departmental Estimates for which they are the critics are being considered. In addition, the House in the past has not required members in the Chamber to stand to speak during Estimates consideration.

So that is why I am going to ask at this point in time, is there unanimous consent for these practices to be continued during this session? [agreed]

Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Rural Development; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Bob Rose (Acting Deputy Chairperson): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Rural Development. Does the honourable Minister of Rural Development have an opening statement?

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development): Yes, I do, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.

Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, and good afternoon, members of the opposition critics. The end of 1993‑94 marked the first year the department has operated under its new structure, the Local Government Services division and the Economic Development Services division. Through this structure, the department maintained services to local government and developed partnerships with businesses and entrepreneurs to promote rural economic development.

These program and service delivery divisions are supported by a restructured policy section, the Corporate Planning and Business Development branch. The result has been improved communications and a more co‑ordinated service approach. In the area of local government services, we began a comprehensive review of The Municipal Act and related statutes. The review which was requested by the UMM and MAUM and local officials is led by a review panel and supported by department staff. Discussion documents were prepared and 2,500 copies were distributed to rural stakeholders.

The review panel completed 17 regional consultation meetings with over 600 delegates attending and providing approximately 300 written submissions and presentations. The process was received positively, and the review panel is now in the process of writing the report with a draft report slated for sometime at the end of this year.

The municipal assessment branch has completed property reassessment for the 1994 tax year across the province. The reassessment included extended public service hours in regional assessment offices during October and November to assist ratepayers, meetings with all 202 municipal governments to explain the impacts of reassessment, and a new simplified assessment notice with an information insert for ratepayers. Only 2 percent of all properties in the province were appealed, and all appeals in rural Manitoba have been heard and decisions have been rendered.

During the past seven years, the branch fully automated and simplified the assessment process and now plans to emphasize field inspections to prevent inequities and ensure all properties are accurately valued. The division is now reviewing the mobility disadvantaged program guidelines which will allow existing programs to continue operations and encourage new communities to join this program that has received increased funding of $45,000 to a total of $455,000.

Last year we introduced The Regional Waste Management Authorities Act as well as a number of changes to the existing Municipal Act. Changes such as allowing investment in Treasury bills, mutual funds and allowing municipalities to appoint their own auditors will help increase the effectiveness. This year it is proposed the act be changed for easier collection of tax arrears on oil and gas wells.

Staff from the Local Government Support branch are working closely with councils in several northern communities to help them deal with the mine closures. For example, this department worked with Manitoba Family Services to develop an innovative answer to some troubling questions in Lynn Lake. For residents relying on social assistance, we helped develop a one‑time program allowing them to clean up their community by removing and maintaining abandoned homes and businesses, therefore helping this town's transition. This department is also working with Leaf Rapids, Snow Lake and Flin Flon to help them explore and develop economic activities and opportunities.

To build on its client relationship, the department is working closely with municipal offices in redesigning the forms and reports they need to support their budgeting and taxation process. The revised tax statement is an example of a co‑operative working relationship we have developed with the municipalities.

For the Economic Development Services Division, this year has been one of promoting new economic programs and services and facilitating rural business development and job creation. Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, 1993‑94 saw the introduction of two new REDI components, the Rural Entrepreneur Assistance program, or REA, and the Junior Achievement program. Each program introduced sought‑after skills training components for new and future real entrepreneurs. To date the department has facilitated total REDI project commitments of $12.7 million, a commitment that has resulted in total capital investment of $145 million and the creation of more than 500 jobs in rural Manitoba. Within this total, the newly created REA program has approved 26 projects to date and levered $2 million in capital investment and created more than 70 jobs.

In addition, youth focus programming, including Partners with Youth and the Green Team, generated 1,300 part‑time jobs for rural youth. This year the "Hometown" component was added to the $1.8‑million Green Team to allow municipalities to hire local students, aged sixteen to twenty‑four, to work on local projects. Together with the "Hometown" component, the Green Team will employ more than 700 young adults. This department recently expanded youth assistance with the creation of the REDI‑funded Rural Youth Business Initiative. Furthermore, this department contributed $24,500 to the Youth Business Institute to allow this program to expand to rural schools.

REDI also supported strategic initiatives for rural Manitoba, such as the Rural Call Centre Strategy and the Local Economic Delivery System Study. Rural libraries will receive $1 million in REDI support, with municipalities receiving an increase of $1.5 million in REDI funds.

In co‑operation with the federal Community Futures program, the department is reviewing the local economic delivery system in rural Manitoba. The consultant's study expected in July will focus on the agencies receiving assistance from various levels of government and recommend an improved approach to the system.

The department's Grow Bonds program is experiencing increasing interest. To date, 11 Grow Bond issues have been approved, totalling $4.5 million and generating over $15 million in total investment and over 250 jobs in rural Manitoba. All rural Grow Bonds sales are successful and of note is the recent Winkler Meats $240,000 issue which sold out in about three hours. Today, I might add, we were able to launch a new Grow Bond, and before we left the meeting, the Grow Bond had sold $42,000 of Grow Bonds. So the support of local bond issues is proof that rural Manitoba believes in local initiative. Our plan is to build upon this belief.

The department's Community Choices Program expanded in rural Manitoba again in 1993‑94. Today, 58 community round tables operate in our rural areas involving 101 municipalities. This represents an additional 19 round tables since last year. About 20 round tables have completed their vision statements and are now proceeding with further action plans.

In 1993‑94 the PAMWI agreement was expanded to 13 new communities to assist in sewer and water development projects. PAMWI's commitments to date total approximately $81 million. A review of the Manitoba Water Services Board and sewer grant formula is helping develop a simplified formula that is now being investigated and recommendations are forthcoming. The Water and Sewer Program extended assistance of $1.7 million and the Water Development and Drought Proofing Program is proposing to extend assistance of more than $1.2 million in new agreements.

* (1450)

As part of this department's focus on improving the rural infrastructure, we recently announced the opportunity for 23 communities to take part in the expansion of natural gas to their areas. This $22‑million initiative, with the province contributing $7.2 million, could easily provide natural gas service to more than 1,000 businesses, 140 public buildings and 6,000 private homes representing a rural population of at least 19,000 people.

The benefits of this initiative are clear. It can provide long‑term economic growth in rural Manitoba by offering savings in energy costs and an additional fuel option for business development. Town council meetings on the program are now taking place, and a 60 percent sign‑up ratio must be reached in these communities before individual projects can be proceeded with. Once this is completed, construction could begin as early as June.

In 1993‑94, the department tabled the Rural Economic Development Strategy for public consultation. This strategy contains a vision of rural Manitoba, guiding principles and 10 key components. The process towards finalizing this strategy was set in motion in Manitoba's first rural development forum in Neepawa last year. The forum brought together 350 rural stakeholders to refine the draft strategy into share ideas, identify opportunities for economic growth and to forge new partnerships.

Many of those same rural entrepreneurs, business people and community leaders returned to the 1994 edition of Rural Development Forum. About 800 participants took part in the forum including about 250 youth from rural Manitoba who contributed their views and involvement in our economic future. This year's forum, co‑sponsored by the Manitoba Chamber of Commerce, Junior Achievement of Manitoba and EITC, focused on the implementation of the rural economic development strategy.

To spearhead the implementation phase, I have appointed a rural advisory committee of 14 rural businesses and community leaders to help guide the strategy's implementation. This committee will report directly to me ensuring that the rural voice of Manitoba is heard.

In closing, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Department of Rural Development is undertaking major strategic and legislative review initiatives changing the face of local government in rural Manitoba. We, too, are adapting and improving the way we serve our clients. We are getting positive results, opening the lines of communication and fostering a positive attitude about rural Manitoba. We are working together with others. We are fulfilling our responsibilities, and we are making rural Manitoba stronger.

Thank you very much, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson. I would like to indicate to you at this time that I will circulate a copy of these speaking notes to my critics in both opposition parties. I simply apologize for not having them to you in advance. I will get them to you very quickly.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We thank the Minister of Rural Development for those comments. Does the official opposition critic the honourable member for Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) have an opening statement?

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake): Yes, I do. Thank you, and I will be brief so that‑‑

An Honourable Member: And kind.

Mr. Clif Evans: ‑‑and kind, so that we may continue into the general Estimates and then go through it line by line.

The minister has made some good comments with what the department has been attempting to do in the past couple of years. I am pleased, and I think the minister knows this. We have discussed it and I feel that the Rural Development portfolio and department is an extremely important one not only to this province but to other provinces. I would like to see, certainly, the Rural Development department take a lead role in establishing a fine economic base for rural Manitobans throughout Manitoba, expanding perhaps through decentralization, perhaps through other ways and means.

As far as natural gas goes, we will discuss that later. I am rather disappointed that some areas were not able to be a part of the first go‑around with the natural gas, and I am sure the minister will discuss this later.

I am pleased to say that I had the opportunity, with the minister, to be at the forum in Brandon just a few weeks back, and I was very enthused about what I heard and saw there especially from the young people that were there, the comments that were made. It opens your eyes, I believe, to understand and realize that the young people in rural Manitoba are the ones that are the future of rural Manitoba and their wishes, their needs, and I guess their demands are very important. The Rural Development department, basically, should be the one that should be listening to the young people of our rural areas.

I must also comment that I was very pleased and impressed with the minister's staff in organizing and how they handled the Brandon forum. I must also put on record, as I did in my budget speech, that my wife and I were treated so very well by his department and the minister. I just want to say in closing that it will be a pleasure, people in Manitoba permitting, to serve as their minister of Rural Development, if it so be, and that it will be a pleasure to work alongside of them. Those are my comments.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): I thank the critic for the official opposition for those remarks. Does the critic for the second opposition party the honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) have any opening remarks?

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface): Oui, Monsieur le président. Est‑ce‑que je peux parler en français?

Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, it gives me great pleasure again this year to be part of the Rural Development Estimates.

First, I would like to thank the minister for his open‑door policy when we have concerns, that he has always left the door open so that we can discuss with him and with his staff. I would like to say that whenever I have had concerns or questions‑‑[interjection] We know that.

I will be very brief. The fact that we want to go through the Estimates, and there will certainly be questions to be asked. I know there are Grow Bonds and we have supported that from Day One and will continue to do so, but I think we will have questions of the fact that we have been talking about jobs and jobs that have been created in regard to that. I think we would want to know the number of jobs that it has created in rural Manitoba. I think the interest for rural Manitoba is not just one party.

I think 57 representative elected officials are concerned, whether we are in Winnipeg or in rural Manitoba. We are there to work with all Manitobans, not just with one sector or one constituency, and I think, if we co‑operate with the opposition or the government, that is where we get most satisfaction. I think it has been shown. I know I have tried to co‑operate. I have had satisfaction from government members, and I thank them for that and will continue to do that and take the high road whenever we are discussing things. When we criticize, it should be positive criticism, and like I say, I will continue to do that. If I slip somehow, sometimes, I mean, we all do, and we will continue to do that. I thank you for the brief comments, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): We thank the member for St. Boniface for those opening remarks.

Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of a department. Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line. I would like to advise members of the committee that the correct procedure for considering items in the Committee of Supply is in a line‑by‑line manner. In order to skip ahead or to revert back to lines already passed, unanimous consent of the committee is required.

At this time, before we begin, I would like to invite the minister's staff to join us at the table and would ask the minister to introduce his or her staff present.

* (1500)

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I, first of all, would like to introduce to the table Mr. Winston Hodgins, who is the deputy minister of the Department of Rural Development. With Winston, I would like to also introduce Mr. Brian Johnston, who is the manager of the Finance and Administration Division. In addition, I would like to introduce Ron Riopka, who is the Director of Corporate Planning and Business Development Branch in the department and also Aline Zollner, who is the special assistant to the deputy minister.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Thank you very much.

1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $397,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $77,000‑‑pass.

l.(c) Brandon Office (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $100,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $53,400‑‑pass.

1.(d) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $113,500‑‑

Mr. Gaudry: The item, Salaries and Employee Benefits, is quite a reduction. Could we have a short explanation as to why the reduction of 50‑some‑odd thousand dollars?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this is a result of some consolidation that resulted in the Human Resource branch, and we were able, in this way, to reduce one staff person. The function is now being conducted or is being carried out through amalgamation with other departments.

Mr. Gaudry: To what other departments has it been transferred?

Mr. Derkach: There are several departments that have come together to sort of consolidate this kind of service, and it is the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Environment and our own Department of Rural Development.

Mr. Gaudry: Thank you.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed. (2) Other Expenditures $20,700‑‑pass.

1.(e) Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $237,300. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Gaudry: Again, this decrease in Other Expenditures in item 2.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $198,800.

Mr. Derkach: In that particular line under Supplies and Services, the cause of the reduction, if you like, is related to the more efficient use of space and our staff being able to have space reassigned in a more effective way.

Mr. Clif Evans: Can the minister just reiterate the $33,500 on Grants under that department head, Financial and Administrative Services? The grants, where do they go from this department area?

Mr. Derkach: Do you want a listing of the grants?

Mr. Clif Evans: Not a listing, just a general.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, there is a grant to the Manitoba Municipal Administrators' Association, and there is a grant to the Intergovernmental Committee on Urban and Regional Research. There is also the support that is given to the UMM banquet and the support of the MAUM banquet, I think, as well in this same component. Now, did you need the amounts?

Mr. Clif Evans: No.

Mr. Derkach: Okay.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose): Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.

2. Boards (a) Municipal Board (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $333,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $127,900‑‑pass.

Mr. Clif Evans: Under Municipal Board, I wonder if the minister would answer some questions with regard to the Gimli issue under this heading. As it has been brought to the minister's attention and I have been part, of course, of the questions directed to the minister and heard his answers, I just want to make comment here. Because in the past week, 10 days, and previous, the minister and I discussed this some weeks ago and I was rather surprised to see, after hearing the people from Gimli, the proponents of this project, even though the minister indicated that it was the proper procedure that he should be following, that the minister‑‑and I guess the complaint was the fact that the proponent went through all the hoops and saddles and whatever else that they had to do.

They came to the government for no support. There was no government support whatsoever to this family. They followed all the procedures. They received all the stamping and approval of the local Planning District Board, the local jurisdictions as far as reeves, mayors and councillors. I was rather surprised, I guess, that the minister would take this route on a project that he is taking, on a project that is so important to the community, not only to the Gimli community and to expedite it, but it is also important to the surrounding communities, spin‑offs, construction work, and of course potential long‑term full‑time jobs within a dealership.

The question, of course, and it has been asked in House during Question Period‑‑and I have seen the paperwork‑‑and I really do not see a reason, a substantial reason, that the minister should have this go to the Municipal Board. I would think that with all the support that the project has received from everybody except for two people that the minister has the discretion to just allow the project to proceed.

Between the appeal, between‑‑and as I said earlier, all the loops that they have gone through‑‑now they have to wait for this project even longer. All the necessary meeting and whatnot has to go again. It is going to be going at the end of May. Well, I guess how I can put it is the proponents are very, very down on the bureaucratic system. They are very down on the minister. They are very upset with the fact that here they have worked hard spending lots of money and will be spending lots of money bringing tremendous economic growth for the area that the minister should not have just rubber‑stamped this and sent it along its way. Let them get moving on the project.

* (1510)

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thank the member for that question because it has been the subject of two questions in the House over the last week or so. Perhaps I could better clarify or explain it in this setting.

First of all, it is true that this particular move of a business to that part of the community is going to create additional jobs in the community because it is certainly going to be an expansion, if you like, and, you know, a new business in a community is always a welcome sight to many, many people. What is unfortunate sometimes is that there are people who object for one reason or another. In some cases, the objection is valid; in some cases, it is frivolous. So when the objection comes to the department, we have to weigh whether or not it is simply a frivolous kind of objection or whether there is some validity to it and should be considered by an independent body that has been established for those things.

In this vein, I guess, I could use an analogy in my own back yard, if you like. Everybody in this Chamber has heard about the Asessippi ski hill project. Now, you know, we launched‑‑I should not say we. The proponent launched that project over a year ago and would have loved to get on with the job of building the facility and creating something like 130 jobs in the area. However, there is a process that has to be followed when objectors come forward, and in that case, objectors did come forward. A process has to be followed, and it takes time. It does not mean that the project is dead or will not take place, but it does mean that some questions have to be answered.

In this particular situation, we have a piece of land that was zoned agricultural and was changed from agricultural land to commercial, I believe it was. So, therefore, you would have‑‑naturally somebody would want to object when you do changes. I mean, it happens often. The Chudd family approached this in a similar manner that others approach it. In other words, they went through the same processes that other individuals would have to in applying for a rezoning in a subdivision. In this particular case, an objector did come forward, an intervener. I guess the local politics is somewhat heated in this issue, and both parties, I understand, have obtained the services of legal counsel who, I understand, are also very well versed in municipal law.

Now, I think it is wrong for me as an individual to pass judgment on a case like this simply on my own and then either allow the project to proceed or, in other words, end it. I would much prefer to send this to a quasi‑judicial body, if you like, who have the authority to deal with matters of this nature, and it would be consistent then with the way that things are handled in the department. We looked at the past to see whether there were any precedents that would lead us to a different conclusion, and I have to say that whether it is this government or former administrations, we have always respected the role of the Municipal Board. For that reason, we have allowed them to make the final decision in this matter‑‑or they will make the decision and then report back to me as to what they have decided in this case.

We have tried to move the hearing up as soon as possible or as close as we can to the spring season so that if in fact the results are positive to the Chudd family, then they can proceed with the construction of the new facility in this spring season and be in business as quickly as possible.

So to that end, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think we have followed the right approach. We have not attempted to in any way favour one party or the other and have simply tried to follow a process that has been established in the long term.

Mr. Clif Evans: I appreciate what the minister is saying, and I have the objection in front of me. Was there a specific part of the objection, basis of objection‑‑it lists seven objections‑‑did the minister decide on any one particular objection within the objection to use or to feel that he could not deal with it on his own or that it was‑‑I mean and also he had support of all governmental people, as I said earlier. There is no government money, no tax money in this project, as with the proposed plan in the minister's area. There is going to be some public money.

Mr. Derkach: Maybe they should go out and get Grow Bonds.

Mr. Clif Evans: Maybe they should, but is there a specific objection that the minister feels or are all these objections worthy enough from two people to go and bring in another board, other members of the Municipal Board in to hear what has been heard over and over again? It has been heard two or three times already. I mean, unless the minister can tell me there is something specific that he is worried about that the Municipal Board should be dealing with on this, then I would like to hear it.

Mr. Derkach: And there is. You cannot simply treat this as a frivolous matter, because any time you change the use of land, and there was a change in the use of the land, anytime you change that, you cannot say that it is an insignificant matter. It was not until the use of the land or the intended use of that land was changed that we had an intervener.

So when you change the intended use of land, and my understanding is, it was agriculture, now rezoned to commercial, you have a significant issue, and if there is an intervener, then I think it is only appropriate for us to follow a process that has been set traditionally in the department, and that is to refer a case like that to the Municipal Board.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

Even though I would like to see something like that resolved perhaps at the local level, we do have to have an appeal process where the parties involved can have somebody outside of the area listen to the arguments and then base their decision, if you like, on an objective basis.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, of course the minister is aware that one of the objectors sits on the Municipal Board, is a member of the Municipal Board. What regulations or legislation, if any, or whatever the minister can tell me‑‑I mean, does this person have to resign from the board? Will his objection‑‑I mean, that is another question. How is he who knows the ropes, who was an appointment, how is his role as a member of the board going to continue, or will it continue, as an objector? [interjection] I am sorry. If I may, is he going to have to remove himself from that Municipal Board hearing in May?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, first of all, I would like to explain the process of the Municipal Board. It is true that in this case the intervener is a member of the Municipal Board. The Municipal Board has a number of people appointed to it. I cannot tell you the exact number‑‑[interjection] Yes, there are 24 members who sit on the Municipal Board. You will not have the entire Municipal Board sitting to hear a particular case. What will happen is perhaps three members will be selected out of the 24 to sit on this case. The intervener will not be selected in any way, shape or form, and he cannot have any say in terms of this matter. So not only does he remove himself, but indeed the chairman of the board will not appoint him as a member of the panel to the board or as a member to that particular hearing.

Mr. Clif Evans: I understand that three board members have already been chosen. If the minister has the names available now, I would appreciate it, if not for the record, provide it to me at a later date.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have the names. I did not know that they had been selected yet, but it is the chair, Mr. Jim Donald, who selects the members who will sit on the particular case. I will get the names, if they have already been selected, for the member and report back at our next sitting.

Mr. Clif Evans: Well, thank you. Sort of going off this topic and on, I guess I speak not necessarily specifically and only for my own feelings on this. From the conversations I have had with the people in the area and the anger out there that this process is not only going to be taking place, but it has already taken so long to come to that conclusion, I think that there would have to be in the future something, the same situation, looked at very, very closely, perhaps a different procedure.

* (1520)

In looking at the objections, I cannot for myself see any real threat, that these objections they have put through are going to be a threat to the community or to the land base or whatever. They have support throughout the whole community. They have support from the other dealers in their own community down the road. They have support from everybody but two people, and I can appreciate that, yes, there has to be, if someone has a very, very strong objection to something, yes, they should be heard.

Perhaps, you know, these objections could have been heard and sat down with the minister, both the proponent and the objector, and discussed and come to some conclusion instead of bringing people all over the place from all over the place to hear everything over again and hear all the support again and for the Municipal Board to put a rubber stamp on it. I just would think that perhaps this could be looked at at a future time, future date, to speeding up these types of things for proponents who want to establish economic well‑being for their communities, private people, private funding.

Mr. Derkach: I certainly accept that suggestion from the member. I say there are other areas in government where perhaps long‑standing tradition or perhaps regulations or legislation that have been passed in years gone by, we are now seeing that perhaps different approaches should be taken to speed up and to make sure that our province is an attractive place for investors.

Whether it is this particular situation which is a very small one in an overall context of the province, or let us extend that to a larger project, and I refer specifically to a project like Louisiana‑Pacific who are also interested in investment in the province. There is a process they have to go through and although many of us may be frustrated and may like to get on with things to build our province, there are processes that have to be followed.

I guess I will commit to the member that during The Municipal Act review, this is an issue that I will undertake to address and see whether or not there is a more effective and efficient process that can be developed.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

(2) Other Expenditures $15,400. Shall the item pass? [interjection] I am sorry.

(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $25,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $15,400‑‑pass.

Resolution 13.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $502,400 for Rural Development, Boards, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995‑‑pass.

We now move on to Corporate Planning and Business Development $661,700 (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $599,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $62,400‑‑pass.

Mr. Gaudry: Slow down. In Other Expenditures, you have a substantial decrease there from $89,700 to $62,400.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member for St. Boniface, if you could repeat that, please.

Mr. Gaudry: In Other Expenditures, the substantial decrease of $89,700 to $62,400.

Mr. Derkach: This, again, reflects the decrease or the reduction in office space requirements as was the case in the previous one that we dealt with in terms of the supplies and services area. We have been able to reduce the space requirement by the department and that has resulted in some cost savings.

Mr. Gaudry: Why are you reducing this space if you are not reducing staff? It is about time. It took you six years.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, over the last six years we have tried to implement some efficiency in government and in each department. We have been working very hard at ensuring that the functions we perform are done in an effective and efficient manner.

Last year, as the member will recall, we reduced a significant number of staff in the planning area of the department. That resulted in some vacant space in the building. We have reduced our space from three floors that we used to occupy down to two floors presently. That has resulted in some cost savings, and those are reflected in the Estimates here.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 3.(b) Other Expenditures $62,400‑‑pass.

Resolution 13.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $661,700 for Rural Development, Corporate Planning and Business Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

We will now move on to Local Government Services 4.(a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits for $101,700.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we get into this section I would like to introduce to the members opposite the Assistant Deputy Minister of Local Government Services, Ms. Marie Elliott, and the Executive Director, Mr. Roger Dennis.

Item 4.(a)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $101,700.

Mr. Gaudry: I have not noticed any staff reduction, but you have a decrease in salaries on most of the categories. Are these savings because of the Filmon Fridays, so‑called?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is not a reduction in this specific line, but if you look at the department as a whole, there will be some areas where there are reductions, and some of them are because somebody has resigned that has been at the top of the‑‑or someone has retired that is at the top of the pay scale and you hire a new employee at a different level. There have been reclassifications. Last year we did reduce, as I indicated, a significant number of staff in the planning area, so that, in effect, impacts on the line. It really has nothing to do with the bill that was passed.

* (1530)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable members that want to carry on a conversation to do so at the back of the room so that we can carry on with our meeting?

4.(a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $101,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $32,600‑‑pass.

4.(b) Assessment (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $5,577,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,110,300‑‑pass.

4.(c) Local Government Support Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $735,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $366,900‑‑pass; (3) Transit Grants $1,325,000.

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, these Transit Grants, these are the grants for handicapped vehicles, for buses for Thompson, for Brandon and Flin Flon, and, of course, just local requests for the handi‑transit vans throughout the province then. Is that under this?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the transit operating grants are offered to three communities in Manitoba: the City of Brandon, the City of Flin Flon and the City of Thompson. The City of Brandon receives a total grant of‑‑I am sorry. I had better get the right figures here. Okay. The 1994‑95 Estimates for the City of Brandon are $692,800; for the City of Flin Flon $50,000; and for the City of Thompson $128,000.

This, in essence, assists the cities to offset some of their operating costs that they have in operating a transit system within those communities.

Mr. Clif Evans: If the minister is not aware, I would like to make him aware of the fact that the communities of Moosehorn and Ashern area, Gypsumville and the LGD of Grahamdale and the R.M of Siglunes have made an application to the department for financial support for a handi‑transit van for their area. It is very important.

They have contacted me for my support. I would just like to make the comment to the minister that hopefully his department will have support for that specific project and, of course, others in my constituency, but also others throughout the province. Specifically, I have been contacted over the past couple of months about the application that is before you, and I would appreciate your support on that.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is a different grant program. This one is for the mobility disadvantaged. There are more and more people living in rural Manitoba who require the services of the handivan transit because people are much more mobile these days. There has also been some decentralization of people from institutions to their own communities which has prompted a demand for this type of transportation.

We had applications from several communities throughout the province last year and this year. Last year, in 1993, we had the communities of Rivers, Ste. Rose du Lac and Altona accepted. In 1994, we have Oak Lake, Rossburn and Arborg. We have on file applications from Ashern, Sandy Lake, Shoal Lake. They are constantly coming in as we get more and more people who require this kind of transit in these communities.

We have 48 communities in total now who participate under the handi‑transit program.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4.(c)(3) Transit Grants $1,325,000‑‑pass; (4) Centennial Grants $14,800‑‑pass; (5) Police Services Grants zero.

Mr. Clif Evans: Could the minister just quickly explain that difference of $200,000?

Mr. Derkach: Last year when the UMM and MAUM agreed to the policing agreement, if you like, one of the conditions was that the $200,000 would be afforded them last year but that would be sort of the final payment of that $200,000 which government was subsidizing the Police Grants by.

This year that $200,000 does disappear in accordance with the agreement that was signed and is no more. So this sort of terminates that part of the old, if you like, formula that was afforded them under the structure.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

Item 4.(c)(6) Municipal Support Grants $1,047,900.

Mr. Clif Evans: Could the minister just go over or generalize on Support Grants, $1,047,000, for this department? Besides your Transit Grants, it is the next highest level of expenditure. Could you give me an overview of the Support Grants?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this section of grants is extended to municipalities to recognize payroll costs. It is calculated at a percentage of payroll, and there are different levels. For example, there is a payroll cost from $600,000 to $1.2 million. That is calculated at 4.7 percent.

Then there are the ones that are over and above that, and that is calculated at 2.35 percent. This program was introduced at the same time that a similar program in Health and Education was announced, and it was to offset the impacts of the payroll tax to municipalities.

There is a threshold at which the payment does trigger in, and that threshold has been increasing as our commitment to reduce the payroll tax has been in place. We have increased that threshold now to $600,000 to limit the payment of the grant to only those municipalities who are actually subject to that tax. Effective in 1994‑95, the grant formula will reflect the change to the minimum payroll tax from $600,000 to $750,000. The grants will be provided to 18 municipalities, and by doing this, it certainly does allow those municipalities to keep more money, if you like, within their jurisdictions to spend within their jurisdictions for the benefit of the people in those municipalities.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass?

Mr. Gaudry: So the municipalities that are involved are only the municipalities that are unincorporated. Is that it? Because it says here, eligible municipalities and unincorporated village districts will receive grant.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the municipalities are sort of the legal entity in an area where you have an unincorporated village, so they would be receiving that particular benefit, not the village itself.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

4.(d) Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of Taxes (1) Grants $35,859,300.

Mr. Clif Evans: I would just like the minister to go over‑‑of course, I have read some of the Activity Identification, $35 million, almost $36 million, again, an overview of it, but if he could also explain the line (2) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations and then with the bottom Subtotal (d). Could you explain that?

* (1540)

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the objectives of this particular program are to assist municipalities or to reimburse them for services extended to provincial lands contained within the local government boundaries. What happens is, we give them grants in lieu of real property taxes because that land is exempt from taxation, and then we, if you wish, recoup our costs from various departments. There are Crown lands across government departments, so therefore that means that we would be collecting back from other departments. What we do not collect back is what we have in the Department of Rural Development. The departments that are involved are Government Services, Education and Training, Natural Resources, Highways and Transportation and, of course, our own department.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 4. (d) Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of Taxes (1) Grants $35,859,300‑‑pass.

(e) Information Systems (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $684,200.

Mr. Gaudry: In this one, we see an increase in salaries. Is it a change of status or merit increases or increase in staff?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the staffing in this branch has not changed. The reason for the increase relates to just regular salary increments for the staff that are there presently. There are no other changes.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

(2) Other Expenditures $1,678,200‑‑pass.

Resolution 13.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,960,900 for Rural Development, Local Government Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995‑‑pass.

We will now move on to 5. Rural Economic Development (a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $100,000.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if you would give us a moment here, I will introduce some staff. First of all, I would like to introduce the assistant deputy minister responsible for the Economic Development division, Mr. Larry Martin, who is here at the table with us. Seated behind him we have Mr. Peter Mah who is the manager of the REDI program, the Rural Economic Development Initiative program. We also have Mr. Dick Menon who is the manager of the Manitoba Water Services Board.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 5.(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $100,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $30,700‑‑pass.

(b) Infrastructure Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,335,100. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the explanation of this department's responsibilities and support that they do provide, provides for the delivery and support to develop and upgrade sewer and water infrastructure. Is that part of the PAMWI at all? Is that strictly under a different area of money?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if I could just take a moment to explain the functions of the Water Services Board and these programs. First of all, the Manitoba Water Services Board does have two programs that have been traditionally delivered through the Water Services Board, but in addition to that we have the PAMWI agreement which was first known as the Southern Development Initiative, I believe, and then was changed to the PAMWI agreement which the acronym stands for Prairie‑‑can you tell me what it is? I need a little assistance here. It is the Partnership Agreement on Municipal Water Infrastructure. Right? That is what the name is.

What the agreement was all about was a third and a third and a third share kind of agreement between the federal government, the provincial government and municipalities.

Initially, certain communities were chosen who demonstrated the greatest need for this kind of infrastructure because of industrial development occurring in the community or potential industrial development. As the program developed, some communities did back out because they found they could not raise the money or decided on different priorities, which left some other communities eligible for programming.

We just finished announcing a series of new communities under the PAMWI agreement, and it has been a very positive program. I believe it has been managed well. It has been done in consultation with both the federal government and municipalities and ourselves.

So I would have to say that if we were looking at delivering a program that involves three levels of government, this one has certainly been a good model to follow, because it involves a structure where there is some monitoring to what happens at the community level. There is some, if you like, due diligence that is performed by both the Water Services Board and the PFRA on these initiatives, so by and large to date this has been a very successful program.

The Water Services Board also does the Drought Proofing program, which is under our department, and the Water Development program, which is under our department as well.

They have just been given another task, and that is that of being involved in the new infrastructure program that is now being administered by various departments, but indeed when you talk about the sewer upgrading, the water service upgrading throughout communities, the Water Services Board is going to have a very key role in that. Certainly, staff there are very busy working with communities and with the federal people from PFRA in administering this program.

Mr. Clif Evans: Under this division, I believe two years ago, and I brought this up to the minister's attention last year in Estimates too, the community of Riverton approached, I believe, three or four of the ministers on upgrading their sewer and water, downtown main street. They have not really heard anything as of late and, of course, the questions are coming as to, has anything been done with this? I believe the community made a proposal to the Minister of Rural Development, and Highways, and Natural Resources.

I was under the impression that Rural Development would be taking a lead role in this. Can you tell me where it is at?

* (1550)

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been in contact with the community of Riverton and they certainly have brought this project to my attention.

Under the existing Water Services Board, they do not qualify for support because of the way the formula is structured and the criteria that have to be met for someone to qualify for that program. We do not have a program in the department that would fit what they want to do. However, we are still working with them. They have been talking to some other departments in government as well and we will continue to work with them to find a possible solution to some of their needs.

We are not taking it lightly, but I have to tell the member right now, there is not a program that their project fits into nicely. I am sure that down the road some solution can be found to their needs.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

5.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $313,700‑‑pass.

5.(c) Community Economic Development Services (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $2,565,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $794,700‑‑pass.

5.(c)(3) Grants $536,600.

Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, just on the Grants, if again the minister could give me a quick breakdown of some of the grants under item 13.5.(c)(3).

Mr. Derkach: I guess the grants that are identified here are the ones that go specifically to the various Regional Development Corporations. We have seven throughout the province. We had a new development corporation established last year. The acronym for it is WEDA, the Westman Economic Development Association, which like the Parkland one is broken into two divisions, the north and the south. In Parkland it is east and west. Basically we have seven corporations that receive granting under the department's program.

Mr. Clif Evans: I would like to just comment on that. Looking from last year to this year, I am pleased, and I think the RDCs are pleased to see that the funding has remained the same, as there was great concern out there that the department would be cutting the funding to the RDCs. I am pleased to say that I can see that it stayed the same this year, the old thing about being a member of an RDC at one time, on the executive, that they are a very important part of rural Manitoba, the local development corporations, and they are doing some excellent work. I would certainly appreciate as much support whether it be from the department or perhaps financially down the road to be able to have the RDCs even do a better job than they are doing. Eight ways into $536,000 I think may not just be enough for some of them to be able to do what they basically want to do. That is just something that the minister could keep in mind.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, a good topic raised by the member, one that certainly has been on my mind for more than a year now.

I guess when I look at what Regional Development Corporations are doing across the province, I find some very positive initiatives and very positive results. However, I do find that in some instances we could have improvements. That is always the case I guess. In some instances we have communities perhaps that house the office, get all the activity, whereas some of the surrounding communities are kind of crying or mildly complaining. There is nobody who is really complaining too loudly that they are not getting the kind of service they would like even though they are a participating community.

I think that it is good for any program to have a review done from time to time so we can ascertain whether or not we are meeting the mark or whether we have to perhaps change in the way we administer our programs. There has been a request that we look at how RDCs function, but more importantly not just on RDCs, I think it is important for us to look at how we deliver services at all levels of government.

If you look at what we have out there, we have the Regional Development Corporations, we have the Community Futures committees, we have Business Development Centres, we have local industrial development groups. Local economic development officers have been hired by communities. We have our own community development offices throughout rural Manitoba. If you are an entrepreneur who is looking for some assistance, you sometimes become confused as to who you should go to first because there are so many people who are out there delivering similar kinds of programs.

To that extent, we thought it might be timely for us to embark on a study of how these programs are delivered and these services are delivered. To that end, we have entered into a contract to have someone look at the programs to give us some ideas about how we can address the whole issue of service delivery to rural Manitobans in a better way.

We are consulting with the communities and with the RDCs and with the various delivery mechanisms to ensure that people have an opportunity for input. In the end certainly our desire is to come up with a system that is going to be effective for the communities and is going to result in some positive initiatives in our communities across Manitoba.

Mr. Clif Evans: If I recollect correctly, I think the minister gave the same little speech last year on this. [interjection] A repeat, yes.

I would just like to put on record that I am not necessarily in favour of doing away with the rural development corporations, and I hope that this plan and this consultant that the minister has is not working or deciding down the road that perhaps rural development corporations cease to exist. I hope that is not in the plans. [interjection]

I certainly hope not, because they are too important to the rural areas, and the local jurisdictions have a tremendous amount of input with the rural development corporations that they are a part of. How more can you have ideas come together for the well‑being of a whole number of communities instead of just centering around one or two?

If you talk about the Interlake or you talk about any of the other constituencies, especially in rural areas that are spread out, the communities are spread out, RDCs are a tremendous asset for those who are members and for the areas. They work well with the local community futures federal programs that are in and around the areas, just so the minister is aware that I am certainly not going to be a happy camper if he decides that rural development corporations are not the best way to go for certain areas and/or for certain projects.

I would certainly hope that he would be consulting with the local RDCs and their members and their executive as to how better RDCs can serve the community, along with the department.

Mr. Derkach: I certainly do not want it to be noted on the record that we are doing away with RDCs, because that is certainly not the intention at all. What we are looking at is how we can make the delivery systems out there more effective to benefit more communities. In the end, the report may recommend that the programs that we have out there are very effective in that we should continue.

* (1600)

On the other hand, I do not think we should bury our heads in the sand and say, let things continue as they are, because I do believe that we can improve. That is our goal. Certainly our mission is to try and provide rural Manitobans with the best possible services at affordable costs, where we are not creating a burden on taxpayers by having a multitude of organizations out there trying to deliver the same service.

We spend significant dollars on these initiatives. I think it is important that they be responsive to the needs of the communities. That is really what this exercise is all about and to get from the communities a sense of how effective these delivery mechanisms are.

We are happy that the community futures program saw fit that this was a worthwhile endeavour and that they are participating in the process as well. I think that is a positive step.

Mr. Clif Evans: I agree with the minister on some of the things he has indicated and said, but how better than local communities dealing with the issues of rural development? You have your grassroots people, your grassroots mayors and/or councillors who are part of rural development corporations. I would think, if there is a study or whatever being done to improve the service and enhancability of rural development RDCs, it would be sort of like a little mini‑‑I cannot think of the word, Larry; help me out here‑‑base for the area in dealing with the Department of Rural Development. You certainly cannot forget them.

If you do not have such organizations, then where is the department going to go? It is going to start going again to individual jurisdictions and meeting with people, and this jurisdiction is going to have this idea, that jurisdiction is going to have this idea, that idea. Under the RDCs, I think that you have all these ideas together, and they should be a major player in whatever can be done to enhance rural development.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

Resolution 13.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,626,100 for Rural Development, Rural Economic Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

We will now move on to Capital Appropriations. 6. Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Transit Bus Purchases $144,000. Shall the item pass?

Mr. Clif Evans: Just on that Transit Bus Purchases, bus purchases for where? Is that one for Brandon?

Mr. Derkach: That is correct, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 6.(a) Transit Bus Purchases $144,000‑‑pass.

(b) Water Development $644,400.

Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, the increase there, could the minister explain the increase of funds, where it is going to be going?

Mr. Derkach: Excuse me, can I ask the member to ask his question again?

Mr. Clif Evans: Yes, Water Development, an increase of $244,000. Can you explain the difference there?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if you look at the 1993‑94 lines under Water Development and Drought Proofing, you will see that in the Water Development side there is an increase from last year to this year; in the Drought Proofing, you will see a decrease from last year to this year. What has happened is that we have simply moved some money over from the Drought Proofing to the Water Development side but the amount of money on those two lines is basically the same as it was in 1993‑94.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? Pass.

6.(c) Sewer and Water $2,000,000.

Mr. Clif Evans: Under Sewer and Water, can the minister indicate how many communities would have access and how they would have access to this funding for their own communities for either expansion, development, improvement to their sewer and water systems?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this particular program certainly does not address all of the needs that we have in rural Manitoba. As you can well appreciate, we have communities, and I visited one of them, that have needs that are 10 times what the total budget for this particular initiative is.

Basically what we try to do is address the most urgent and the most needy communities first. There is a screening process that the Water Services Board does go through. It is also dependent on the ability of the community to afford its share of the cost as well. When you add all of those things up, it certainly does exclude some communities because either they are not able to fund their portion of their project because they do not have the capability within their financing structure, and also, in some communities we are sort of mandated by an environmental, if you like, condition to go ahead and do some emergency work as well.

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my colleague who is taking the lead in this review of the Department of Rural Development has had to leave for a couple of minutes. I am wondering if we could, with the consent of the minister, revert one section to the Community Economic Development Services.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable member to bring his mike up. Hansard is having a little bit of a problem picking you up there.

Mr. Storie: I am wondering if we could revisit the Community Economic Development Services section for a moment, particularly with reference to some of the‑‑[interjection] Yes, with respect to some of the projects that were referenced in the minister's opening remarks, particularly Snow Lake.

* (1610)

I know that some ministers from the government met with representatives from the Snow Lake New Futures Group with respect to a proposal focusing on tourism but looking at many different aspects of tourism for the community. Obviously the minister will know that Snow Lake, effective a few weeks ago, has lost all of its employment related to HBM&S activities.

I am wondering if the minister could tell us what has happened to that proposal, whether the group will be receiving any support and what time frame we might be looking at in receiving that support.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Could I ask the honourable member which item we are dealing with, you were referring to.

Mr. Storie: 5.(c).

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Is it the will of the committee to allow the honourable member? I have to get leave of the committee to revert back. Is there leave of the committee to revert back to item (c)? The honourable member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)‑‑there is leave? [agreed]

Mr. Derkach: I thank the member for that question. I have had the opportunity to travel in northern Manitoba on several occasions, and one of the communities that I have not visited yet specifically has been Snow Lake. I am certainly anxious to get up there at least this summer, because I understand it is a great community.

But let me say that we have found something very interesting about northern Manitoba as we have talked and dealt with communities in the North. One of those things is that many of them are single‑industry towns, and they have relied on this industry for a long time because it has been very beneficial to the community. Then all of a sudden, when the ore deposit runs out, the community is left without any kind of activity that they can turn to other than what they have been accustomed to in that single industry.

I guess the first one that hit us was Lynn Lake, and they were in desperate straits when they came to us. They simply wanted more money from the Mining Reserve to help the town council perform its duties. They had not really sat down and looked at other opportunities that might exist for them or how their community might survive after a mine closure. We asked them to sit down together with staff from our department to do a sort of strategic planning exercise, if you like, and they did that and came up with some very good ideas on their own. These were not driven by government or by my department; they came up from their own community.

I think what was important to note was that the community took on almost a new life because they understood that they had to really get down to work and do things for themselves. We approached Snow Lake with that same message, and we asked Snow Lake for a five‑year strategic plan which I am hoping they are going to come up with very soon. Snow Lake is a very active community. They have lots of people who are actively looking at ways in which they can make their community survive, and tourism certainly looks like a very important component in that community.

They did present to a group of deputy ministers their plan. However, I think the plan still needs some work on it, and again, the community has never been used to doing one of these. It was a first attempt. I think it was a good attempt, but they still need to refine it and to do some more work on it, and with people from our department and other departments we will continue to work with them to see whether or not their project can indeed become a reality in their community.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am all too familiar with the government's response to the community of Lynn Lake. The minister and I have gone over some of this ground in the past, and of course, the government finally, after a couple of years of delay‑‑and I guess I was going to say mismanagement of the issue, but I will not‑‑decided to support some of the municipal needs of that community.

I think it is a little simplistic for the minister to say that the community of Lynn Lake has, in essence, lifted itself up by the boot strap. Certainly, there were many people looking for help and wanting some assistance, but we both know had not gold prices improved‑‑and we had been fortunate enough to find a mine‑‑that the future of Lynn Lake would not look much different today than it did four years ago. That is fortunate. I think the danger is that we are leaving Lynn Lake and now Snow Lake in the same position that they were prior to these unfortunate instances. The community wants to begin a new process.

This minister also knows that more than two years ago the community put forward a Community Adjustment proposal for retraining, new initiatives to allow the community to expand its horizons, to look at alternatives. There has been some support through the Community Adjustment Committee, but the community had proposed a much more aggressive review of all of the issues, tourism, manufacturing, quarrying, a number of others, and there was no support forthcoming.

Now, two years later, well, when the community has lost its main employer for who knows how long, and we could argue about why that happened, the minister is now saying, well, it is a nice proposal and we are looking at it. The question is, when are they going to receive some sort of support?

The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Praznik) and formerly the minister of‑‑the member for Lac du Bonnet, anyway, as a cabinet minister, attended a meeting in Snow Lake and made a number of promises about what services were going to be available. The minister referenced now the staff in the department. I had suggested that there be an economic SWAT team created back in 1991 to help the community of Snow Lake, that in fact, you get people from I, T and T, Tourism, Rural Development, Northern Affairs, Energy and Mines, that you put together a support services group to specifically work with the community.

Not only has that not happened, the bottom line is that there has been very little tangible support from the government for the initiatives. The community of Snow Lake was looking at this initiative believing it was one worthy of support or that parts of it were worthy of support, and all we have is the minister saying, well, it is very nice, but. The question is, when is the minister going to get serious and put some staff and resources to work in the community of Snow Lake to come up with a proposal that is acceptable to the government and that can be funded?

(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I have purposely avoided trying to point fingers in my responses to questions, and I try to stick to the facts. However, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) forgets sometimes where these communities have come from and indeed what the real issues in these communities really are. He does it for political purposes, and I think that he should perhaps take a more realistic view of what is really occurring out there. In his comments he is suggesting that we simply throw funding at these communities without a plan, without any kind of research being done on what these communities might become and how they can grow.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is this government that has put forward a strategy to encourage mining exploration and prospecting. The reason that we do not have mines operating in northern Manitoba today is a result of past government policies, and I am talking about policies which did not provide any kind of incentive for exploration in our north.

Recently we have seen the re‑establishment of a gold mine, not one, but two. We have seen the prospect‑‑

Mr. Storie: Where is the gold mine? There is no gold mine in Snow Lake.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, if the member were to go back to, for example, I think it is‑‑I forget how many bars now have been poured at Lynn Lake recently. Has that been a rejuvenation of a mine?

Mr. Storie: It is an open‑pit mine.

Mr. Derkach: It is an open‑pit mine but, again, there was a decline in the activity there, and now we see an increase and certainly a potential for more activity in the future. But I do not want to take the credit for that. There are people who are working hard in these communities who deserve the credit because they have worked hard. We have tried to facilitate as a government some of the requests that have come from those communities, and we have done that through such programs as the incentive program for exploration, the tax holiday and those kinds of initiatives which certainly do assist in new mines being established, in exploration taking place.

* (1620)

When the community of Lynn Lake came to us in an emergency situation, where abandoned homes were being vandalized, where the community was falling apart, we responded very, very quickly. We put together a program in consultation with that community to address some of those needs. Again, we did not do it for partisan's sake. We did it because it had to be done. This was a community that was in desperate need, and we are taking the same approach with all of the communities in northern Manitoba, and Snow Lake is among them, and we have asked Snow Lake for a long‑term plan.

Why? Because we want to ensure that that community will be healthy down the road. Now, it may not be the same size it is. Certainly we have seen how that community has diminished in size, but for the people who want to live in the north, who want to make Snow Lake their home, we want to ensure that that community is a safe place to live, is a good place to live and one that can attract people to it and is not in essence a dying community.

As I indicated, when you have a one‑industry town, sometimes when the resource does run out that does impact significantly on a community. The member talks about retraining. Yes, we would love to get into retraining wherever we can, and we support retraining. I mean, Workforce 2000 has retrained, what is it, over 80,000 workers. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) smiles, but he has to come to grips with reality.

The funding that is going to Workforce 2000 is not going to the companies. It is going to retrain those workers; that is what the purpose is. For the first time in Manitoba, under Workforce 2000, we have companies now putting money into training which was never the case before because this is a cost‑shared program. As a matter of fact, it was nationally recognized as an excellent training program and one which has now been picked up by other jurisdictions.

Now, yes, there will always be problems when you have programs, I guess. There will always be those who perhaps do not use them correctly, and that is what we are there for to try and ensure that in fact the right thing is done.

With training in the North for specific jobs, I am sure that we would only be too happy to be in the game and helping those workers get retrained for meaningful jobs. I think that the North has a bright future, and we are going through some trying times. My department, along with the departments of Natural Resources, Northern Affairs, and Industry, Trade and Tourism, will continue to work with these communities so that they can survive and be good communities and safe communities to live in.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate the involvement in the last year with Manitoba Family Services and this department dealing with cleanup, some of the cleanup in the community. It was much needed, but I remind the minister that the mine closed in 1989. The question is: Where was the department? Where was the government when all of this vandalism and destruction was occurring? I mean it is all very nice to say, well, we have dealt with it now. We have cleaned up the mess. I mean it was created for a reason. No one is denying‑‑I will leave that. That is old history perhaps now.

The minister keeps referring, for example, to gold mine. The Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) made a wonderful announcement about the TVX project, the new gold mine, and the government's commitment under the Mineral Exploration Incentive Program for TVX. Well, the minister has also announced a potash mine which is pie‑in‑the‑sky dreamland.

An Honourable Member: He did not announce it.

Mr. Storie: He said it was likely it was coming. He has announced diamonds in eastern Manitoba, and TVX is in about the same position. After the minister made the announcement, I phoned the vice‑president for North American operations of TVX and asked him the direct question: Has a production decision been made? The answer is no.

About two days after that I was in Snow Lake for office hours and tried to find anybody who knew anybody who represented TVX in the community. There is no one. I am going back for office hours in Snow Lake on Thursday of next week, and I do not expect to find anybody from TVX. So let us just cut through the facade. The government can issue as many press releases as it wants about what is happening in mining in northern Manitoba. Until there are jobs on the ground, it does not mean much.

The second point is that mining is the bread and butter. We know that the ore is not leaving. What the communities have wanted to do, starting with Lynn Lake in 1989, well, actually Sherridon before that and now dealing with Snow Lake, was to begin to broaden their economic base, and they need to do that sooner, not later. That was what they were asking for. I appreciate that the government is not going to turn over all of the funds available in the Mining Reserve Fund for the communities of Lynn Lake or Snow Lake or any other community. Unfortunately, they have not been willing to turn over anything, virtually. Not only that, when they were requested, when the communities requested assistance from the departments, they received precious little, precious little in terms of ongoing sustained support for those activities.

My question specifically was, what has happened to this proposal, the New Futures proposal from Snow Lake? If there are problems with it, what is the government's commitment in terms of a time frame for actually getting something together with the people of Snow Lake, who the minister quite rightly said are working very hard to secure their future? That is the question.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the member for Flin Flon seems to revel in twisting facts. He is cynical not only about what government does but indeed about communities, and that is unfortunate, because if you were to talk to communities like Snow Lake and like Lynn Lake, they are communities who have hope. Maybe it would benefit the member if he actually lived in the North because‑‑and I understand he is moving to the North which is going to help him understand what the North is really all about.

Perhaps I digress, but let me say that in northern Manitoba, we have communities who are optimistic about their future, and it does not help them when their own MLA goes into their communities and scoffs at the prospect of new ventures occurring. He says, well, I phoned the vice‑president for North American operations, and he told me, no, there is nothing going on. Well, I recommend to the member for Flin Flon that perhaps he should sit down with the Minister of Energy and Mines (Mr. Orchard) and go through what the Minister of Energy and Mines is working at for those communities. I invite him to sit down with me to go over what is happening from my department in the North. Rather than in a forum like this, we can sit down on a one‑to‑one basis and we will go through what we are doing in Lynn Lake, what we are doing in Snow Lake, in his communities, so that they are better communities in which to live.

Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, a number of projects come before us constantly from these communities. Some fit some criteria, some do not. Some have to have some work done on them before they can actually move ahead. The project that the member talks about for Snow Lake has certainly come before a committee that is made up not of one ministry but of several. Now, there is still some work to be done on that project, and that work is continuing at the department level. When it is ready to come before me, as minister, I am sure that staff will forward it to me at that time. I am familiar with the project. I know that there is still some work to be done on it. I am not negative about it, but it is certainly too early to say that, yes, we are just going to sign a cheque over and let it go ahead. I think that there is still some work that needs to be done on it.

* (1630)

The member also talks about us going‑‑or my colleagues or myself making announcements throughout the province, and I just ask him to go back to the industry, to the mining industry, and ask them about how Manitoba stands in relation to other jurisdictions in Canada in terms of the way we have approached in a proactive way the attraction of investors into a mining industry. And, yes, we do not have a potash mine in Russell or in Harrowby or in McAuley or wherever it might be, but certainly there is renewed interest in the potash area, and I am hopeful that reserve can be tapped and can be mined for the benefit of Manitobans.

To me, it matters little whether it is in my own community or thirty miles south of my community. It is good for the province, it is good for the economy of the province, and if we can attract the private investment to begin the process of developing that resource, then I think we should do everything we can to assist. It does not mean that we buy it. It means that we work in co‑operation and in partnership with people to do it. I am not the Minister of Energy and Mines, but I can tell you that I will support him in all of those endeavours.

In terms of supporting Lynn Lake, the member also made some statements about Lynn Lake, and the fact that in 1989 when the mine closed they were in trouble and we did not come to their assistance. Well, that is not quite true because in 1989 there was something like $243,000 that went to Lynn Lake from the Mining Reserve, and then in 1990 and '91 there were monies also extended to them, $160,000 and‑‑

Mr. Storie: That was to pay for municipal taxes.

Mr. Derkach: That was to pay for local services, municipal services, and that is recognized. However, the community themselves recognized the fact that they had to come up with a plan on how they would survive after the mine closed for good, so that community could rely on other resources because there was nothing else in that community at the time, and that is how we worked with the community to develop a plan.

We also tried to assist the community in developing for itself an image which was presentable to people who might come to that community and want to either invest or use that community as a tourist community or as a place to visit. So I think we have worked in partnership. I guess we can always criticize and say, well, you could have done more. But I think that given the resources at our disposal, we have done what we can in those communities and will continue to do as much as we can to help them on the road to prosperity for the betterment of our province and for that community.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not need any lectures from the Minister responsible for Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) about the North. Whether the minister wants to acknowledge it or not, I do live in the North, and I visit my communities regularly, and I am not belittling the efforts of the mining industry. I have been quite positive about some of the initiatives in the Department of Energy and Mines with respect to exploration incentives. There were some flaws in the program initially, and some of those have been corrected. Certainly the tax holidays may be attractive to mining companies, but I have said on other occasions‑‑and I remind the minister that the North is not just mining companies‑‑yes, they are critical, but in the intervening months while HBM&S continues to explore and other mining companies continue to explore, there are communities that are looking for some options.

The specific question was, and the minister talked about the support that was given to Lynn Lake. It was given grudgingly. It was given after numerous calls and meetings and pressure. The point is that it was in response‑‑

Point of Order

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I know a dispute over the facts is not a point of order, but when one puts on record something that he knows is absolutely erroneous, I think that is a point of order, and I think the member should correct his statement on the record.

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): Order, please. The minister is correct. It is a dispute over the facts. There is no point of order.

* * *

Mr. Storie: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I certainly have no intention of correcting what I put on the record. I recall the facts, and this government did not come up and offer of its own accord the kind of support the community requested. The support that they offered, and I am not blaming the minister, I do not think he was Minister responsible for Rural Development, the fact of the matter is, what they offered was some financial support out of the Mining Reserve Fund so that the community could continue to provide municipal services. The reason that they required that assistance was that they had in effect lost their tax base, but that is the support.

My question for the minister is: Since 1989 could you give me a list, can the department provide me with a list of all the funds that have gone to Sherridon, Lynn Lake, Snow Lake, Flin Flon with respect to economic development, the activity that the community itself has said is its most important priority, to find an alternative to the mining as its sole base for the economy?

Unfortunately, it is a pittance. From 1988 to 1993 the government of Manitoba collected more than $400 million in mining taxes from northern Manitoba. The least we could have expected was a small percentage of that to come back to help those communities build their economic base.

Now, I want the minister to be specific. I want the minister to answer the question: How much money has gone to economic development activity, community economic development support, in the last five years? I want the minister to answer the question: When was the last time that members from the department attended on a sustained basis to meet with community members to build that alternative? [interjection]

The minister is saying, well, the department is reviewing it. This is an emergency for the community of Snow Lake. It was an emergency in '89 for the community of Lynn Lake, and what is the minister doing in a sustained way to offer support‑‑not huge sums of money‑‑technical support, expert advice, departmental support?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it is obvious that the member for Flin Flon knows little about economic development. Every time he puts things on the record he demonstrates his lack of knowledge on the topic. I would like to say that his view of economic development is simply throwing money at a community, and he said that on several occasions today in his questions. He said that about the funding that we should be giving to communities, again without a plan, without any kind of a request for economic development.

It is typical of what his administration did when they were in government. They simply threw good money after bad, and that is why this province is saddled with the kind of debt that this province has today. It is regrettable, but nevertheless, we are not taking that approach. We will work in partnership with communities, and when there are requests for economic activity, for economic development, we will be there as partners.

The staff from my department have been very active in northern Manitoba, and every community in northern Manitoba knows that if they wish to have a special person from staff visit them and share with them what it is that we can do as a department for that community, we will be there simply at the behest of that community.

We also have an economic development officer who does travel in northern Manitoba from Thompson, and every community in northern Manitoba is familiar with him and certainly have worked with him in some capacity.

The member asks, how many dollars have you thrown at northern communities? We do not throw dollars at northern communities. We will invest in worthwhile projects that will benefit the communities, projects that will create wealth in the communities as well. Our Grow Bonds Program is open to northern Manitoba. Our REDI program is open to Manitoba, and I dare say that if he compares the Department of Rural Development today with what his own administration had to offer, those communities in northern Manitoba in his tenure, he would have to admit that today we have some very meaningful approaches to economic development in rural Manitoba which are working.

Now the projects themselves have to come from the communities or from proponents. They cannot come from the department itself. We are not there to identify a project and then to start throwing money at it. We still believe that the best investment made in an enterprise is one that is done by local people, and that is why we have the Grow Bonds Program, and it has worked very, very well.

* (1640)

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

As a matter of fact, as I said today, we announced a Grow Bond this morning, a $180,000 Grow Bond, and before we left the meeting $42,000 had been invested in the Grow Bond. Now that just shows you that local people do believe in local initiative and they are willing to support it.

We have worked with our northern communities to identify potential projects that might come forward under REDI or Grow Bonds, and we will continue to do that. Whether it is Lynn Lake or Flin Flon or Snow Lake, we will work as hard as we can with any one of those communities.

I must say, though, that the member is very wrong when he says that the community came to us out of desperation and it was after they had beaten the door down in my office that they received some support‑‑wrong. Indeed, I worked with the mayor of Lynn Lake, and indeed, if he takes a look at where the initiative originated, that initiative originated from the Department of Rural Development as a proposal and as a suggestion of how they could get their community back to a point where it was respectable and one which had cleaned up a lot of the vandalism that had occurred in that community over the number of years.

So I am not lecturing the member for Flin Flon. I am simply telling him how it is and telling him that this department does not need to take a back seat to anyone in terms of working with people in our province. Also, I must say that we have put a special emphasis on northern Manitoba.

Mr. Storie: I am glad the minister is interested in telling it like it is. The fact of the matter is since 1989 the community of Lynn Lake has dropped from approximately 1,800 to approximately 800. The community of Snow Lake has dropped from a community of 2,200 people to perhaps 700 people. The community of Flin Flon has lost probably 400 jobs, so the minister may want to talk about the facts. The facts are that the government, for all of its rhetoric, has been going backwards as far as mining and northern communities are concerned.

The question that I asked, however, has been sidestepped now, I think, on three occasions. The specific question was: What monies has the government made available to support economic development activity that came from within the community? What monies has gone to support the community involvement and development committee in Flin Flon? What monies has gone to support economic development activity in Snow Lake, to the Community Adjustment Committee or the New Futures Group? That was the specific question.

Mr. Derkach: Let me say to the member for Flin Flon that he should think back a little bit because he was Minister of Energy and Mines, I believe, at one time. He knows very well that you do not do exploration today and have a mine tomorrow, that it takes some investment and some time in mining exploration in order to be able to secure the future of mining in our province.

While he was Minister of Energy and Mines, he did not have a program of any kind to stimulate exploration of mining activity in the North. It is for that reason that today we have communities dropping in population, because those old mines are running out of resources and the mining is diminishing. Until new reserves are found and until there is a renewed interest in mining, we are going to have a problem in the North; but it is starting to turn around. It was his government that put disincentives in front of the mining community that caused the mining community to absolutely abandon this province.

So, therefore, today we are attracting them back. All of them. Not one, all of them. [interjection] He is saying name one. All of them, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. All of the companies that worked in Manitoba decided to give up on Manitoba when his government was in power. Today they are coming back to Manitoba; they are reinvesting in Manitoba; they are opening up abandoned mines in Manitoba; and, indeed, there is opportunity and there is a bright future for our communities in Manitoba and northern Manitoba included.

The member asks about specific programs that have been afforded or awarded to northern Manitoba. Let me say that first of all there have been several. Let me go to Thompson.

Point of Order

Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have been trying now on three occasions to get specific answers to the question about what has happened, what support the department has given to the communities of Lynn Lake, Snow Lake and Flin Flon with respect to their efforts to establish a new economic base. That was the question. Now I do not want the minister to read a list of grants for other municipalities or R.M.s or entities‑‑

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is clearly, clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in northern Manitoba, first of all in Thompson under the REA program there have been two projects that have been approved.

Mr. Storie: Can I write that down?

Mr. Derkach: The member asks if he can write it down. If he is capable of writing it down, yes he may, or he can read Hansard.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in Thompson we have a client called The Best for Less Store who received support under the REA program. We also have Bullee's Mac Tools which received support under the REA program in Thompson.

Under the REDI program, we have in Churchill Tundra Tours who received support under the REDI program. We have Caribou Ventures Limited who received support under the REDI program.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.

Point of Order

Mr. Storie: I give up. On a point of order or perhaps a point of procedure, I do not need the minister to read a list of projects that have been approved. I can certainly read them. If the minister could identify for the committee what specific projects have been approved that have been applied for‑‑

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order, and there is no such thing as a point of procedure.

* * *

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister was answering his question. We will allow the minister the opportunity to answer the question at this time.

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will continue to give the good news to the member, and although it hurts a little he must bear with me.

Caribou Ventures in Churchill received support under the REDI program and so did Leaf Rapids Chamber of Commerce receive support under the REDI program. In the LGD of Churchill, we have the LGD of Churchill Prefab Housing initiative received support under REDI programming as well.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in addition to that, all communities in northern Manitoba received the 10 percent which was given to all communities in Manitoba. Besides the 10 percent, we also gave them $5,000 on top of that for each municipality to recognize that some of our smaller municipalities did not access the REDI programming very readily.

So we are working with northern Manitoba. As a matter of fact, there is a project from Leaf Rapids right now that is being worked on, but I am not going to go out there and try to drum up the projects to come forward. They have to come forward on their own. Indeed, when they come forward, we will work with them and we will target staff to help develop these projects and put business plans in place and work as hard as we can to approve these projects.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister proves my point. He has read the list. The list did not include any support to community adjustment committees, Snow Lake new ventures, CIDC from Flin Flon. It shows that there was absolutely no support, which was the case I was making. I want to thank the minister for making my case. The bottom line is that the government has chosen to ignore the plight of those communities, and we will leave that for the record.

* (1650)

I want to make two other points with respect to the minister's comments about mining. The minister talked about that our government‑‑and I was Minister of Energy and Mines. I was Minister of Energy and Mines for a short period of time and during that time, through MMR, helped to establish a mine in Flin Flon. Unlike this government, which has seen mine after‑‑

An Honourable Member: You established a mine?

Mr. Storie: Yes, the Callinan mine in Flin Flon was supported by the government of the day, as was the purchase of Ruttan mine by HBM&S to keep the community of Leaf Rapids going, as was support to what was then SherrGold to support the community of Lynn Lake.

An Honourable Member: What exploration did you do?

Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and exploration of course was the ongoing exploration of MMR, which was supported by the portion of Trout Lake mine in particular that it owned.

There were no disincentives, in fact there were no changes to the mining regulations whatsoever during our term in government. The only disincentive that was applied was in 1988‑89 tax year when the new government, the government that this member was a part of, introduced a surtax on mining of 1.5 percent. That surtax‑‑never mind all of the rhetoric about what they are doing for the mining industry‑‑has remained in place today. In fact, this budget reduced the mining surtax from 1.5 percent to .5 percent I believe. So this mining surtax has been in place since this government took office, and they imposed it in 1989. Talk about speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. The government talks about the incentives it has provided; well, it introduced a surtax.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we are not talking‑‑I have tried to avoid talking about the mining industry. The mining industry is a big industry and has invested in exploration in the past and will in the future.

The question was: What is the government doing to help the communities? There is obviously nothing.

I want to ask the minister a more specific question. He is going to want to respond to some of my comments, but the more specific question is: Has the government, has the minister directed staff to meet in Snow Lake with Snow Lakers to review the new Community Futures proposal to identify where and in what ways the government can lend a hand, can work co‑operatively with the community to make things happen?

Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) certainly tries again to somehow twist what is reality to make a failed administration like his look better. I do not know how you can do that.

All you have to do is talk to the mining industry and I think it becomes very apparent how the former administration abandoned northern Manitoba, how they abandoned the mining community and how they abandoned the exploration of mining in Manitoba.

I am proud of what our government has done in terms of the mining tax holiday, in terms of the exploration returning to this province.

Every administration, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think has tried to do something positive, and indeed I will not say that everything the member did when he was minister was negative. I would never say that, but let him not try to inflate the positives of his administration either.

He talks about Snow Lake, specifically, and I have to tell him that he should know, and it should be put on the record, that this is not a project that came to us a year or two ago. This is a project that was identified as recently as December, when staff met with the communities to talk about a project in a conceptual sense. After that, they were required to come up with some information, and staff from my department and other departments met again in mid‑March with them, when the plan was presented. At this time, the plan was not in any way, shape or form in a complete form.

Now we must understand the magnitude of the plan that they are proposing. This is not a $100,000 investment or project; this is a $7‑million investment. The member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) thinks that between December and now, which is May, we should approve a $7‑million project and approve it without having a completed business plan in place.

Now I indicated to him very specifically, I am not negative on the plan, but certainly we need to have more work done. The work that needs to be done has been identified to the community by staff, and staff from my department and other departments have indicated to the community of Snow Lake that they are prepared to meet with them and work with them. It may be a very good project in the end, but let us not start to criticize something when we are just in the process of it.

We are just in the process of the project. The community still has to do a lot of work on the project, and staff from a variety of departments will work with them to try and make their workload a little easier on them as well.

So that is basically the stage of this particular project that the member talks about, and we certainly will continue working with that community.

Mr. Storie: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was asking simply what status the New Futures project had.

I make the point that in fact it has been not just a few months that the elements of this proposal, particularly the tourism component, were identified by the Community Adjustment Committee more than two years ago. The community at that time was seeking some assistance, either a service in kind, the secondment of staff.

The point, well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the Community Adjustment Committee tabled with the government a whole proposal more than two years ago. And as I said, the member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), a minister in the government, then‑Minister of Northern Affairs, I think at that time, anyway a minister of the government, Mr. Praznik, attended and understood what the community was looking for in terms of support. The same is true of this proposal.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister continues to say that he understands these communities. The community of Snow Lake does not have an economic base that will allow it to pay $60,000 or $80,000 to hire people to do the things that need to be done. If the government does not provide the support, then I would ask them to provide the assistance in terms of the staff. That is why I asked, almost three years ago now, for the government to put together a team of people to help the community. That, yes, it is all very good to require the initiative from local people to identify the opportunities and to provide direction to a group of people who might be trying to identify projects, but the community does not have the resources.

The government is sitting on a Mining Reserve Fund that now exceeds $15 million. It has received some $400 million in mining taxes. Does it seem so illogical or unreasonable to request that a little bit of money be spent, a little bit of money, to help the community along in its plans? The minister sees some sort of satisfaction that the members of the government have now identified where the plan may need developing. Well, Mr. Minister, take the time to assign some staff to work with the community to develop the plans to the point where you can identify a project that may use Grow Bonds or REDI or some other project for funding. I am simply saying apply some staff to this. The government has‑‑

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, committee rise.

Call in the Speaker.

HEALTH

Madam Chairperson (Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Health on page 81 of the Estimates manual. We are on item 1.(b) Executive Support.

Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits.

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Madam Chairperson, earlier in Question Period we had an occasion for me for the first time to ask the question about this year's salary for the deputy minister. I think the minister was mistaken. I did not ask about this year's salary yesterday in the Estimates process, I asked it today in the Question Period. But my question remains to the minister.

The deputy minister has received a salary increase of over $4,000. How can the minister justify that particular increase at this time?

* (1440)

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Madam Chairperson, I perhaps misheard the member today because I thought he was asking basically the same questions he was asking yesterday. He shakes his head, and I have misunderstood the difference in the questions that he is asking.

Let me just say that the salary of the deputy minister reflected in the 1993‑94 Estimates has been reduced by the reduced workweek as per Bill 22 introduced in 1993‑94. The annual amount is $100,400. I am not sure what number the honourable member was using earlier, but that is what it came to.

With respect to the columns identified on the salary details contain the following: general salary increase requirement from September 18, 1994, until year‑end March 31, 1994‑‑this was transferred from a central government account after COLA increase was determined per the master agreement‑‑is $2,000; reinstatement of the reduced workweek for 1993‑94 for $4,200; the reduced workweek for '94‑95, minus $4,400; an annual merit increment, $4,000. That must be what the honourable member is referring to.

People who work in our hospitals, people who work in our personal care homes, people who work for government, people who work for Crown corporations receive annual merit increments, and this is the situation with the Deputy Minister of Health.

Then there is a general salary increment of $500 so that the 1994‑95 Estimates show a figure of $106,700. Now, I hope that sets out the situation. It is basically in line with what I said yesterday and what I repeated again today when there were media listening. That was that the Deputy Minister of Health is treated no differently than anybody else.

Deputy ministers generally have rates of pay that are set somewhat higher than other people working in the system, either in hospitals, although I do not know about the salaries of all of the administrators at the hospital, but I know that deputy ministers usually make more than staff in a department or line staff in a hospital or facility.

What I tried to underline yesterday and again today is that I know of nothing that sets the Deputy Minister of Health apart from any other deputy minister in the government and nothing that sets him apart from other people who work for the civil service, other than that he is a deputy minister and perhaps his base is set higher than the base of other people working in the system. That has not changed.

As far as I know, deputy ministers, when the previous government was in office, had wage levels, the base set higher than assistant deputy ministers, for example, or set higher than staff working in the field.

I do not know quite what the honourable member's point is. Is he suggesting that we ask the deputy minister, because he is a deputy minister, to make some adjustment that other deputy ministers are not being asked to make, that the member for Kildonan (Mr. Chomiak) is not being asked to make, or the member's Leader is not being asked to make?

I am trying to get a clear understanding of what the difference is between the issues raised yesterday by the honourable member and the issues today and how it is that the Deputy Minister of Health is somehow getting treatment that is different from other people in the civil service.

Mr. Chomiak: The question raised yesterday was with respect to the fact that the Supplementary Estimates last year did not reflect the actual total of the salary as included in '93‑94 as adjusted this year. My question yesterday was the adjustment and where that difference came. That was yesterday's question.

Today's question, and the minister answered the question if I understand it correctly. The deputy minister is receiving an overall increase of $500 and a $4,000 merit increase. The point from all of that is the question I asked in Question Period, and I have no hesitation of stating again the whole question of symbolism and how it looks, particularly when you juxtapose it against the increases in salaries by the Professional/Technical staff and the Administrative Support staff. They do not increase in commensurate amounts to that of the deputy minister.

While I recognize the base is a different figure, it is still symbolic in an era of cutbacks and an era when people are asked to make major sacrifices in the system. It simply does not look good.

Mr. McCrae: Well, I am glad the honourable member has cleared that up, that it is simply a question of symbolism. If it is simply a question of symbolism, why does he not pick on the salary of somebody else other than the Minister of Health? Why does he not pick on the salary of somebody in his caucus or why does he not pick on the salary of his caucus chief of staff or somebody like that?

If all it is is symbolism, what merit is there in the point being raised by the honourable member? Why does he single out the Deputy Minister of Health when if all he wants to do is pick some victim out there and make somebody into a victim? Why pick the Minister of Health? Was it random? Is there a particular reason why he has done that? Why does he not ask me what the salary of the president of the MNU is? Why does he not ask me that? Why does he not ask me what the salary of the president of the UFCW is, or why does he not ask me what the salary of the chief of the Peguis Reserve is or something like that? Why does he not ask me those things?

Why does he not ask the salaries of other people working in the department? Maybe he will. He knows what my salary is if he sees fit to vote in favour of it, but why pick out one person for the sake of symbolism when we can pick out lots of people where the symbolism is far more important, I suspect, or far more dramatic in terms of the kinds of points the honourable member seems to be wanting to make.

I cannot help but observe, if this is his case, Madam Chairperson, the honourable member ought to rest it.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I think the minister would have a great deal of difficulty explaining to individuals who have been cut off of home care, who have to pay for home care equipment, who have to pay for home care equipment supplies, who have trouble waiting on waiting lists to get into hospitals, who have to wait sometimes years or 18 months to get operations, that the chief administrator and executive of his department is getting a $4,000 merit increase. The minister may not agree. He may not agree that it is a major point, but to that person I believe it is. That is the point that I am making.

If the minister wants to comment, fine. If he wants to move on, fine. I am prepared to discuss this as long as he wants.

Mr. McCrae: The honourable member is engaging in the kind of tactics that really do not bear much by way of response, Madam Chairperson.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, the minister indicated he would table the MMA agreement for us early today. I have not received a copy of it. I am wondering where that particular agreement is.

* (1450)

Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I have to share with my colleagues today the agreement reached between the Province of Manitoba and the Manitoba Medical Association. It is dated the 8th day of March, 1994.

As I began to point out last night, the agreement spells the beginning of a renewed relationship, I suggest, with government and the medical profession. It was very important to government to achieve this agreement and, I suggest, perhaps important to the MMA as well. As medical practitioners are very key people in the whole health care delivery system, it remained important prior to the signing of this agreement to settle outstanding issues and to create an understanding that could work for a number of years as we try to make our health care system something that will be sustainable for many generations to come.

That is the goal, and I am pleased to ask the Page to make these contracts, copies of them available to my honourable colleagues.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, while we wait for the distribution of the agreements, I wonder if the minister can outline for me, in terms of the capital, there is $4,600 allocated for capital for Executive Support. I just wonder what that money might be utilized for.

Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I believe the honourable member for Kildonan is awaiting a response to his question.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the amount to which the honourable member refers has to do with upgrading computer capacity in the ministerial and deputy ministerial office so that we can better serve the public.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, I am not being critical of anyone‑‑we are still waiting the distribution of the documentation with respect to the MMA agreement‑‑but can the minister in the interim tell me whether or not the Manitoba Medical Services Council has met at this point, how many times they have met and basically what they have dealt with?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the Medical Services Council has not met, and it is about to be struck as I speak.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, are the terms of reference for the Manitoba Medical Services Council set out, and can we have copies of the terms of reference of the Manitoba Medical Services Council?

Mr. McCrae: The agreement sets out the terms of reference of the Manitoba Medical Services Council.

Mr. Chomiak: Can the minister indicate who all the appointees are to the Manitoba Medical Services Council and/or can he table a document that illustrates who the specific individuals on the council are?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, but not today. As I say, it is being struck; it has not been struck. I expect very shortly the honourable member will be apprised of the names of the individuals who are prepared to serve in that capacity.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, similarly, can the minister indicate whether or not the Physician Resource Committee has met or is intending to meet? Can he also table the board of directors of that committee when and if it is available? Finally, can he indicate what the terms of reference are for that committee, unless they are in the agreement, in which case I will have a chance to quickly review that?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, when and if, and yes. Yes, I will make the names of the individuals on the Physician Resource Committee available to the honourable member, and the terms of reference of the committee is also set out in the MMA agreement.

Mr. Chomiak: Again, as I await an opportunity to review the committee, to review the actual documentation, I wonder if the minister can indicate for me whether or not the drawback with respect to Bill 22, as it affects this agreement, has been completed for this fiscal year or does it continue further on into this fiscal year?

Mr. McCrae: Because the requirements of Bill 22 for the last fiscal year only began to be addressed very late in the fiscal year, it was agreed between the parties that they would have until the end of June of this year, '94, to complete the changes in the fee structure necessary to comply with Bill 22 for last year, which means that for the remainder of between now and the end of June some members of the medical profession will be making some considerable adjustment for the next little while. Then the requirements of Bill 22 for the present fiscal year will also be complied with by the end of this fiscal year.

Mr. Chomiak: Have those fee adjustments already been indicated? Can the minister outline for us what those fee adjustments are?

Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I do not have that information. That is something that is done by the MMA internally. There are various sections of the Manitoba Medical Association, and historically in some sections members have had certain levels of fees that have been adjusted either up or down depending on the specialty or group of physicians involved. This was left to the MMA to work out with their members and that is being done. I do not have that information.

Mr. Chomiak: One of the criticisms made of the agreement, and I am certain that was not from ill‑informed people, was the fact that in certain areas there was a fear that the fee reductions would be a disincentive‑‑the best way I can term it is a disincentive‑‑to some individuals.

The best example would have been an area where we have very few specialists. The effects could be devastating in an area where it is sometimes difficult to attract particular individuals and specialists to this jurisdiction. I am wondering if the minister has any concept of that particular difficulty and how it is being addressed.

* (1500)

Mr. McCrae: I understand the concern the honourable member raises but taken in light of the fact that some of these specialties here in Manitoba the practitioners of it were garnering fees that exceeded national averages, exceeded what one could make in the province of Ontario, exceeded even the salary of Frank Maynard.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, they will not be getting a 4 percent merit increase this year? To the minister.

Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, some will get more than 4 percent, some will get less. It addresses somewhat of a historical imbalance that has built up over the years.

Mr. Chomiak: Since the minister has stated that, so what is the government's involvement precisely in this process? Initially when I asked about the fee reductions in tariff as they applied to Bill 22, the minister said the physicians were working on it themselves. The minister has now left the impression that in fact the government is having an input in terms of how these fees are being allocated and divided up. Can the minister outline what that input is?

Mr. McCrae: While it was the work of the Manitoba Medical Association to address these things, the government did have a role to ensure that there were not inconsistencies or inappropriate changes that would have the kind of result that would leave Manitobans unnecessarily without the kinds of services they need. That was the role played by government to this point. With the Manitoba Medical Services Council the government will have some say there but so will consumers. That is a very important feature of the MMA package.

Mr. Chomiak: Madam Chairperson, as I understand it, the government made much of the fact that they are capping globally the fees to be paid for doctors, and the minister can correct me if I am wrong. Globally, the fees paid to physicians have been capped in year one and two of the agreement. There is a Bill 22 application that draws back some of those fundings, and then Years 3, 4 and 5 there could be fee increases that must come in below a cap. Is that a correct understanding of the agreement?

Mr. McCrae: Yes.

Mr. Chomiak: Does the minister therefore envision that in years three, four and five there is a potential for less medical services to be performed in the province of Manitoba while still paying the same amount or perhaps more in terms of fee for service?

Mr. McCrae: That question will be answered by the Medical Services Council. That is the role and function of it, to ensure that the cap is abided by, that whatever measures are taken to ensure that the cap is abided by are measures that are consistent with what the consumers of health services are interested in protecting, consistent with the government and consistent with the MMA representatives there. That is why the Medical Services Council is such an extremely important aspect of this. We get to work together as opposed to the government just calling all the shots.

They will make recommendations which ultimately government will have to put into effect or reject or ask for change or whatever, but it is a relationship between a council composed of the various disciplines that we have talked about. It is a focus on overseeing the cap that is laid out in the agreement.

For example, the honourable member raised in the House issues respecting lab fees and laboratory operations in Manitoba. It is felt by many consumers‑‑it was brought forward to my attention many times‑‑that that is an area where there may be unintentional misuse of the health system whereby without knowledge physician‑to‑physician people will go to one physician and get certain lab tests ordered and another day go to another one.

We know that is true because of the PURC, the Patient Utilization Review Committee, which made it very clear that indeed that is happening. In fact, the honourable member might be interested in knowing that as we are in the development stages of the Drug Program Information Network we have already, through the piloting of that, found people double‑doctoring and those types of things.

So we think the Medical Services Council can be very useful in identifying issues like that. The use of walk‑in clinics has been raised as well as a potential for us to look at those operations to see that they are achieving the intended results. I believe that the Medical Services Council will indeed look at the interplay between walk‑in clinics, doctors' offices, emergency rooms and community health centres, the operation of all of those places, to see how is the best way for us to achieve the best results for the patients in Manitoba through the use of the Medical Services Council.

We have o