LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Thursday, May 5, 1994

 

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

 

PRAYERS

 

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

 

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

 

Oil and Natural Gas Rights Sales

 

Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister of Energy and Mines):  Mr. Speaker, I have a statement for the House and copies for opposition members.

 

          I am pleased to report to the House that the results of competitive bidding for Crown oil and natural gas rights offered by the Department of Energy and Mines have again shown an increase.

 

          The Crown lease sale was conducted on May 4, 1994, and resulted in the highest revenues since 1985.  A total of $831,725 was received when bids were accepted on 107 of 113 leases, and three of three exploration reservations.

 

          The previous sale conducted on November 3, 1993, was the largest since 1986.

 

          During the November 1993 sale, $525,257 was received when bids on 61 of 77 leased parcels and five of nine exploration reservations were accepted.  Yesterday's figure of $831,725 more than doubled the revenue of $411,087 from May 1993 and exceeded last November's revenue.

 

          The highest price per hectare from this sale has exceeded the November figure of $121.88 as well.  Williston Wildcatters Oil Corporation of Arcola, Saskatchewan and Dorset Exploration Ltd. of Calgary, Alberta paid $219 per hectare for seven separate lease parcels located six kilometres west of Lyleton.  Yesterday's sale nearly equals the 1993 combined total of the May and November sales of $936,344 which was the highest collected since 1986 when the total was $891,358.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I remind members that we can still look forward to the November 1994 sales which will again add revenues for the province.

 

          I am further pleased to report that the total area of dispositions purchased by the petroleum industry at this sale was the highest since 1980.  As well, the total area of leases purchased was the highest recorded since oil and gas lease sales were introduced in 1979.  Members of this House will recall that no sales were recorded between 1972 and 1978.

 

          The results of competitive bidding and the recent surge in drilling activities are encouraging signs that the oil industry continues to play a significant role in Manitoba's economy.  I believe that the policies and programs introduced by this government since 1988 have been instrumental in attracting new investment in the province's oil sector.  In fact, Mr. Speaker, 87 wells were drilled in this province in 1993, a figure which represents an increase of 210 percent over the previous year.  Depending on oil prices, we expect drilling activity to continue at this pace for the remainder of the year.  A second sale this year will be conducted November 2.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members will want to acknowledge this good news for Manitoba, again coming from Manitoba's oil patch.  Thank you.

 

* (1335)

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson):  Mr. Speaker, I find it a rather interesting ministerial statement.  In fact, it is interesting that the minister has gone into such detail to point out that revenue has now come back to the level it was in terms of 1985.  So certainly that was rather an interesting comment coming from that member.  I believe the dates that were being used here, that there was an NDP government in place at the time.  I remember there was a lot of criticism at the time from members opposite in terms of the oil industry.

 

          I would say, Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting that the minister seems to spend a great deal of time, obviously, going through these types of statistics but has not brought in some other interesting statistics in terms of our resource sector, particularly in the mining industry where we are going to see zero revenue in terms of the mining industry this year, as part of the budget indicated a lack of royalties.

 

          Despite the fact the government has been announcing mines that are possibly going to open in communities that have seen their mines shut down, in terms of communities such as Snow Lake and Lynn Lake, we are seeing continuing difficulty, including my own constituency in Thompson where at this point in time, despite all the tax breaks that were given to the mining industry, employment is being reduced by 200 jobs in the community.  We are seeing the minister announce outside of the House, the same potash mine that was announced prior to the 1981 election.

 

An Honourable Member:  Do not stop us now.

 

Mr. Ashton:  Do not stop us now, indeed, Mr. Speaker.  So we welcome any good news, but I hope when the minister has the time to go through some of the other statistics, he might want to bring in some sort of ministerial statement outlining the fact that, in terms of some other areas in the resource sector, there are continuing difficulties.

 

          We are still a long way from recovering from the recession, and even though this is good news, here is a case where we have recovered to the 1985 level.  If the minister would care to look at the other statistics, he will see we have a long way to go in other sectors, particularly in the mining sector here in the province of Manitoba.

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, let me start by saying that we share in the optimism that I think the government has about the options that have been purchased here.  We hope that they translate into drilling and activity which benefits the province.  Obviously, this is an important industry and we are happy to see that this sale has gone successfully.  We hope that the November 2 sale as well continues that trend.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I do want to simply leave on the record our continuing hope and optimism as well that, in the minerals area, and I know this is also the minister responsible for those issues, things like Williams Lake indeed will come to fruition.  We are very hopeful that there will be a strike of significant size that major investment can be made.

 

          We also, of course, hope that the nickel price generally goes up so that the major investments companies like Inco have already made will in fact lead to higher employment.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I do also hope that the investments, the rights that have been purchased here are followed up upon as quickly as possible.  I do not know the timetable of some of the companies that have purchased these, but we certainly encourage them to invest, not for any partisan purpose but simply to help the citizens of this province.

 

          It is an important industry.  We hope that it grows and continues to grow in the future.  Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this afternoon from the Westwood Collegiate fifty Grade 11 students under the direction of Mr. Richard Ford.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson).

 

          Also, from the Sisler High School, we have thirty Grade 11 students under Mr. Mike Gartner.  This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

 

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

 

* (1340)

 

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

 

Foster Families

Per Diems‑‑Extended Families

 

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

 

          Last week it was revealed by the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) that relatives of foster care children were going to have a major reduction in their rates.

 

          We have since received a letter from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which I will table in this House today, that indicates this will have a dramatic impact on First Nations children.  The chiefs go on, to quote:  "80% of First Nations placements occur within the extended family."

 

          This reduction will place tremendous hardship on their families, as it will, we believe, with children in foster care with relatives outside of the First Nations communities.

 

          I would like to ask the Premier how many children in placement will be affected by this reduction from the provincial government.  What will this impact be on foster care line‑ups that are already taking place, and what will be the impact in terms of federal revenues flowing to First Nations communities for the 80 percent of the children who are impacted?

 

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services):  Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because I do want to clarify the record and put facts on the table.

 

          We have over $6 million more in the child welfare budget this year than we had last year.  That is a major increase.  We have more children coming into care, and in discussions with Child and Family Services agencies and with working with our biggest child welfare agency, that is with Winnipeg Child and Family Services, there was a sense that the system we have in place today is not working.  We have to look at new and innovative ways of providing services for children.

 

          Mr. Speaker, with the rates for relatives, there is still $320 per month tax free to provide for the basic needs for children, that is food and clothing.  The other dollars that are in the system will still be there.  Those dollars will be redirected in supports around the child, for the sake of the child and in support of those foster families who are caring for children.

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, the government will note that the system they are talking about that is not working is a system that they in fact put in place when they got rid of the volunteers and the other community activity when they amalgamated everything into a downtown agency again and took away the community supports, community volunteers, prevention programs and people working in the schools and communities with our children.

 

          Having said that, and I am surprised the minister would admit that today, but I ask this minister and the Premier (Mr. Filmon) a specific question.

 

          How many children in Manitoba will be reduced by the rate the government has stated?  How many of those children will be in our First Nations communities?  What will be the impact on revenues to those communities in terms of economic and social development in our First Nations communities?  Did the government know the answer to the question before they made the move, and if they did know the answer to the question, could they please share it with the rest of Manitobans who are feeling the brunt of this arbitrary government decision?

 

Mrs. Mitchelson:  Mr. Speaker, there will not be any child that will suffer with this change, because I have indicated already that there will be adequate dollars there for basic needs, for food and for clothing.  The dollars will still be there for the child in the child welfare system.  There will be over $6 million more in the system in support of children.

 

          What we are looking at, with a new vision worked out with the Child and Family Services agencies, our largest agency in Winnipeg, is a vision that talks about family support, family preservation and family responsibility.  The dollars will still be there in the system, augmented dollars to put the services in a place around the child, to put the supports in place around the foster families so that those children can be managed and dealt with in a different way, in a different fashion and in a more productive way.

 

* (1345)

 

Mr. Doer:  Mr. Speaker, my question, again, is to the Premier (Mr. Filmon) or the Minister responsible for Native Affairs (Mr. Praznik).

 

          Because the federal government is following through on the same reductions that the provincial government is making in terms of their rates, and because of the fact there is a 50 percent higher cost of living in northern Manitoba that affects many of the First Nations communities, and 80 percent of the children in First Nations communities that are in foster care are in extended care‑‑which, of course, we think is an advantage after the previous government stopped the adoptions south of the border for many of the children that was taking place, as Judge Kimelman had indicated in his report and had recommended in his report in the early '80s‑‑I would like to ask the Minister of Native Affairs or the Premier, in his capacity as minister responsible for federal‑provincial affairs, were you aware of the impact of your decision on children in the federal jurisdiction?

 

          Have you discussed this with the federal government?  What is the plan in place in First Nations communities, and how are we going to deal with our children that need care and need economic investment, not economic and social cutbacks in our First Nations communities?

 

Mrs. Mitchelson:  Mr. Speaker, it is because this government does care about children that there will be more money in the system, not less‑‑over $6 million more to serve children in the child welfare system.  Our dollars have been refocused around support for children in foster placement and support for foster families, whether it be homemaker services or whether it be professional services that are needed to serve the best interests of the child.

 

          We have every confidence that the federal Liberal government will, in fact, maintain all of the support they presently put around children in the native agencies, that they provide the majority of the funding for, to ensure that those services are surrounding children throughout our Manitoba communities.

 

Foster Families

Per Diems‑‑Extended Families

 

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland):  Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Family Services on a related matter.  We are talking about foster care.

 

          Did the minister consult with the federal Liberal government and also the aboriginal child care agencies prior to making these cuts in foster care rates that are coming into effect this June?  Is this minister aware that the federal government is now going to make the same cuts as this province?

 

Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister of Family Services):  Mr. Speaker, I thank my honourable friend for that question because he is putting false information on the record.  In fact, there are not cuts to child welfare in the province of Manitoba.  There is an increase of over $6 million.

 

          I indicated in my previous answers that the dollars that will be there for basic needs for children in foster care will be $320 a month tax free.  That is for food and for clothing.  The additional dollars that are still in the system will be refocused around supports for the child in the system, supports for the foster family, so that, in fact, we can see the number of children having to come into care decrease, not increase.

 

          So we are concerned.  We believe that the vision that looks at family support, family preservation and family responsibility is the direction we need to go.

 

Mr. Robinson:  Mr. Speaker, last month, along with the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), I attended the conference of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and the federal minister concerning the dismantling of the Department of Indian Affairs in this province.

 

          The federal government signed a Memorandum of Understanding, which stated that there would be no reductions in funding programs or services between the department and also First Nations.

 

          I would like to table that memorandum for the information of members, Mr. Speaker.

 

          My question is:  Given that 80 percent or more of foster parents on reserves are relatives, does this minister not recognize that this cut will have major implications on northern Manitoba First Nations reserves, where the cost of living is at a minimum 50 to 80 percent higher than in southern Manitoba?  What studies has she conducted on the implication of these cuts?

 

* (1350)

 

Mrs. Mitchelson:  Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the supports will still be there for the child, for the sake of the child.  I think that is our first priority as a government to ensure that the supports are around the child so that we can reverse the trend that has been taking more children into care and try to work within families to preserve the family unit.  We are extremely concerned that we move in that direction.

 

          I had a meeting set up with the federal Minister of Indian Affairs, which he cancelled at very short notice, and I have been trying to get another meeting set up with him.

 

          We understand that there will be some changes with devolution of authority and power to First Nations, and, Mr. Speaker, we want to know what implication that is going to have on Manitoba and Manitobans.

 

          I am communicating presently with the minister to see whether in fact, if we cannot set up a meeting and he does not have the ability to meet with me here, in fact, we will be asking him very direct questions and looking for very direct responses.

 

Mr. Robinson:  Mr. Speaker, I, too, agree that we have to consider our children as being a very important responsibility and the vital role that foster care homes play.

 

          Is this minister now prepared to put these cuts on hold and consult with the federal Liberal government, child care agencies and also aboriginal organizations about the implications of these cuts on aboriginal children, so that they do not have another lost generation of children who are taken from their home reserves and shipped elsewhere?

 

Mrs. Mitchelson:  Mr. Speaker, I again would like to correct the record, that there is no cut to supports around children.  Unless the federal government arbitrarily decides to reduce their funding for their responsibility on reserve for children, there are no cuts.

 

          The money will be there to support the children, and the children are our first interest.  We want to assure that the professional supports, the homemaking supports are provided around the child and around the foster family.  That money is in the system, and more money is in the system to redirect and refocus and try to make a difference, and a positive difference, for Manitoba children.

 

Manitoba Sugar Co.

Contingency Plan

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, as I think all members are aware, there have been extensive negotiations continuing between the employees of the sugar company and B.C. Sugar revolving around the plant in the city of Winnipeg, and 165 jobs are at stake.

 

          I know the minister has been involved, and Mr. Fox‑Decent has been doing all that he can to get the parties together.  I also know that the minister made some suggestions this morning.

 

          I want to ask the Minister of Labour whether or not he has a plan B of sorts.  That is, Mr. Speaker, if in fact these parties, and, of course, we all hope that they can resolve this, if in fact they do not, if in fact it is clear that the company is going to walk away from this industry in Manitoba, has the minister a plan in place to try to save this industry, to try to save these jobs?  Specifically I ask him if he has considered looking to the Crocus Fund as a possible source of revenue, looking to the employees to perhaps see if they are interested in taking on ownership of this plant, perhaps the producers, as is the case in the United States, a producers co‑op.

 

          Has the minister a contingency plan in the short term to deal with this situation to try to preserve this industry if in fact these parties cannot get together?

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour):  Mr. Speaker, firstly, let me say that what is a critical factor in this dispute and what will ultimately determine the time frames on which a resolution can occur is the weather.

 

          If the weather‑‑[interjection] Members may laugh across the way, but I think it demonstrates a lack of appreciation for what in fact is happening.  The only reason why this issue is still here today is because we had a rain this week and we had cold weather.  The farmers and producers that we have been in touch with across the beet‑growing belt, quite frankly, when the weather warms up slightly, will be in the fields seeding.  It could be later today or tomorrow, they will be seeding.  Whether it is beet seeds or it is other seeds that they are putting in the ground will be the determination of what is going on this afternoon, as we speak, between the two parties.

 

          So I say to the member that the options he raises this afternoon and he has floated certainly are options that industry can consider in the long term, but I do not think a buyout by employees, however financed, that there is sufficient time for that to occur at this particular point.

 

* (1355)

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, clearly, we cannot control the weather and we cannot control these negotiations.  What I think all members want to do is be on the side of the workers and the producers who are wanting to keep their livelihood.  I am very disappointed to hear that the minister has written off other options.

 

          Has the minister in fact spoken to the board of the fund in order to see if there is any opportunity to at least secure the crop for this year and then buy some time to structure some form of a buyout?‑‑because this has been coming for some time.

 

          Have there been any discussions with the operators of the Crocus Fund to determine whether or not there are any opportunities to look at other ways of saving this business, as was done successfully‑‑granted, with a longer timetable‑‑for Abitibi‑Price?  Why can we not give the same effort and the same contribution of effort and time to this particular plant in this season?

 

Mr. Praznik:  Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party, in the preamble to his question, made a very interesting point.  He said very clearly that he is on the side of the employees in this particular dispute, and the beet producers.  Let me assure him that as Minister of Labour I am not on the side of either the employers or the employees.  They are adults.  They have an issue to deal with.

 

          From my experience and from the knowledge that I have from what has been occurring at the table and behind the scenes in discussions, I can tell you quite frankly in this House today, as I have said to the media and I said to both parties this morning in this building in Room 254, both bear some of the responsibility here.  They have to, in the very short time period, put aside their personal bickering and all of the things that have kept them from reaching a conclusion, recognize that they are on the precipice and come to a resolution of this matter if either the company wants to continue that operation or the employees want to have their jobs.  They have reached the precipice.  They must make a choice in the next few hours.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the efforts of the minister.  No one has criticized, least of all us, his efforts and Mr. Fox‑Decent's efforts to get these parties together.

 

          Mr. Speaker, what I am asking the minister is:  Is there absolutely no contingency plan if these parties cannot get together?  We have examples in the United States of the producers, through co‑operatives, owning plants like this.  We have experience in this province and a fund dedicated to assisting with employees buying out and participating in the businesses.  Is there absolutely no plan B in the event that these two parties cannot reconcile their differences?

 

Mr. Praznik:  Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised that my colleague in the law would not appreciate that as one reaches the most crucial moments in negotiation, the important part is for both parties to recognize that they are on the precipice.

 

          What the Leader of the Liberal Party does in fact today, with his question, is jeopardize the negotiations that are going on this afternoon in holding out some impractical solution to keep people away from making the hard decisions that both parties have to make in the next few hours.

 

          I say to the member opposite that members of this bench, my colleagues who represent the beet‑producing areas, the member for Emerson (Mr. Penner) and the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) and the producers of the province want a sugar industry, and I am sure there will be a sugar industry.  Whether Manitoba Sugar and the people of UFCW are part of that sugar industry is a decision that they have to make in the next few hours, but there will be, inevitably, a sugar industry in Manitoba.

 

Maintenance Enforcement

Income Deduction

 

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns):  Mr. Speaker, poverty suffered by our women and children in Manitoba is often the product of separation and divorce.  While a recent Canadian court decision has provided at least some relief hopefully for families receiving maintenance payments, this province continues to condemn children to poverty because of this government's failure to pursue spouses who do not pay.  We need tough new measures.

 

          My question to the Minister of Justice is:  Will she advise the House why she is not taking action to deduct support payments automatically from income sources as is done with income tax?

 

* (1400)

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, payment of support to women and children, in most cases‑‑and in some cases it is to the man, as the member may know‑‑is of utmost importance.  Certainly, benefits which would flow through to children are of importance.  This government takes that issue extremely seriously, and we have made a number of efforts within my department to make that the most efficient system possible.

 

          In addition, I will tell the member that my department is making an effort to meet with those people who receive maintenance enforcement support, community groups and so on, to make sure that their suggestions and their recommendations about how the enforcement and also the flow of payment can be done in a most efficient way.

 

Mr. Mackintosh:  Mr. Speaker, given that one cannot even get through to the Maintenance Enforcement Branch‑‑it takes sometimes days to get through and once you get through they will only take a message‑‑my question to the minister is:  Will she try and understand that it is also important to prevent the default in maintenance payments, and will she consider a program which automatically deducts payments at the source?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, there has been in the past couple of days, in particular, certainly a large number of calls which have flowed into our Maintenance Enforcement office.  So I will just remind the member of some of the initiatives that we have taken as a department over the past two years‑‑this is not something which has occurred just in the past couple of days‑‑in specific, to make sure that this office operates in the most efficient way.

 

          I can tell the member that this government in the past two years has allocated $120,000 to assist in the area of computer enhancement and automation so that information is available to individuals.

 

          Also, we are moving to a voice‑automated system which should assist people when they wish to phone up so that they can get information about what is the level of their account when payments have been made, and so on, by simply using the buttons on the telephone.  So we are making every effort.

 

          I will also tell the member that certainly we do look to other jurisdictions as well to see if they have had success in any additional ways that might help us in Manitoba.

 

Mr. Mackintosh:  My final supplementary to the minister is:  Given that any work done in that department has done nothing but reinforce the fact that the Maintenance Enforcement program is one of the worst disgraces of this government, will the minister advise what emergency plan of new innovative action she is prepared to take, including looking and bringing into this House measures so that there is an automatic deduction at the source?

 

Mrs. Vodrey:  Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member would not want to have provided an insult to the hard‑working people in this area who have managed to increase the amount of money collected on behalf of Manitobans by 9.5 percent in the past year.  They in fact do their work very earnestly.

 

          He also refers to an emergency plan.  That is the only kind of thinking he is able to do.  We on the other hand have a plan, and I will be happy to go over it with him again.  I will remind him that we have increased resources in that area by five people in the last two years by five staff years.

 

          We have also, as I said to him, allotted $120,000 to the area of computer enhancement.  We are moving to a voice‑automated system.  We are reviewing the legislation, a very important component, but we are taking the time in reviewing the legislation to make sure we have spoken to interested groups.

 

          Lastly, I will tell the member that we work as part of a federal‑provincial territorial group for improvement to the REMO act which I hope that the federal Liberal government will take a leadership role in.

 

CN Rail/CP Rail Merger

Impact on Employment

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Mr. Speaker, reports out today indicate that the merger of CN and CP are proceeding full speed ahead with the blessing of the federal Liberal government.  Last fall, I wrote to the Minister of Highways and Transportation warning him of the potential impacts upon the province of Manitoba if this merger was to take place.  Manitoba has already lost some 3,000 rail jobs since 1988.

 

          My question is for the Minister of Highways and Transportation:  Can the Minister of Highways and Transportation tell the House what involvement he has had in any way regarding the discussions dealing with the merger of CN and CP?

 

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Speaker, if the member had been in the House the other night, he would have heard my answer to the question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) when we talked about exactly this issue.  It is a delicate issue, requires considerable knowledge of the issue.  Certainly, three provinces in western Canada and, I hope, four provinces, will come together to do a complete analysis of the impact of this potential decision regarding eastern Canada.  As we go into that process, we are going to ask that the consultant do a complete analysis that affects all of western Canada and, most particularly, Winnipeg and all the workers in the rail industry.

 

          I can assure the member that there are also some upsides in this process.  Winnipeg is seen more and more as a rail hub for east‑west and north‑south, and there is some real silver lining in the overall process of change of trade patterns that is going on in North America relative to the rail industry in Winnipeg.

 

Mr. Reid:  My supplementary question is to the same minister.

 

          Since the minister has met with rail representatives as he has indicated, what information can he share with the House concerning CN and CP's long‑term plan for jobs and services?  What impact will that merger have on the real jobs in this province?  Have there been any interim studies done?

 

Mr. Findlay:  Mr. Speaker, clearly, the answer to that question lies in my answer to his first question.  We are going through a major analysis that will give us some of those answers.  The member full well knows that both railways have announced significant layoffs over the next period of time right across the country as they adjust to be competitive in the changing trade patterns.

 

          I can assure you that there is a lot of discussion going on amongst all the different carriers of freight, whether it is rail, road or air, but there is a greater co‑operation amongst them all.  I see, as I said in my earlier answer, Winnipeg being a more and more important hub for movement of goods east‑west, north‑south in all of North America.

 

Public Hearings

 

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona):  Because there is potential for serious impact upon the province of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, will this minister follow Ontario's lead by writing to the federal minister responsible for transportation and calling for full public hearings, intervener funding and a review of other potential solutions other than the merger?

 

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation):  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that the National Transportation Association, NTA, will play a major role in the decision‑making process.  It is absolutely imperative that they do hold public hearings, so that all the different groups that are impacted have an opportunity for input before they make that final decision.  So, yes, I support public hearings by the NTA on this issue when it is put in front of them.

 

Maintenance Enforcement

Pension Plans

 

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne):  Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice, as well, on the subject of maintenance enforcement.

 

          Women in Canada are rejoicing in the Federal Court of Appeal decision.  However, in order for this ruling to truly benefit single parents and their children, we must ensure that these payments actually reach them.  Today in Manitoba over $27 million in back‑child payments is owed to the children of Manitoba.

 

          Has her department investigated amending The Pension Benefits Act and the maintenance enforcement act to allow pension principle to be available to be garnisheed to satisfy outstanding amounts and not simply pension benefits?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, a very large piece of the money which is owing is owing from jurisdictions outside of the province of Manitoba.  I am not sure if in her investigation she actually uncovered that number, so it is very important for us to have co‑operation among jurisdictions.

 

          The issue of actually paying is a federal issue, a national issue, and so we are working with the federal‑provincial‑territorial working group to look at how we can improve payment from other jurisdictions.

 

          I answered in an earlier answer, as well, that my department is working with community groups to seek ideas of where important changes to the maintenance enforcement act should come from, what those changes might be, and we are looking to review that.

 

Service Access

 

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne):  Mr. Speaker, my supplementary:  The Minister of Justice indicated that the Maintenance Enforcement office is moving toward E‑mail.  One of the many complaints we have been receiving from women is that they do not get the opportunity to talk to a person.  Caseloads are 800 to 900.

 

          How will this E‑mail system address access to the people who are going to assist the women with their inquiries?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of caseloads.  I can tell her that is in fact a significant change and a reduction in caseload, a very significant reduction, thanks to some of the initiatives which have been put in place.  They were much, much higher before.

 

          I can also tell her that is a comparable caseload across Canada for the kinds of caseloads that workers may have.

 

          The member asks how the E‑mail may work.  It will allow individuals to access information about their file without the need to have long waits on the phone.  It will then also allow our staff who are there to be available to then work with those particular individuals where there are very specific problems, rather than answering some questions which may simply be to give out an amount of money that is within an account, or when a last payment date was.

 

* (1410)

 

Reduced Work Week

 

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne):  I have a final question for the minister.

 

          Can the minister assure this House that the imposition of Filmon Fridays on the employees in the Maintenance Enforcement office will not cause hardship in July and August, as was the case when the processing of cheques was delayed in January?

 

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General):  Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we have taken great care both last year and this year to make sure that funds are flowed, that there is not an interruption on behalf of individuals in Manitoba.  We will be taking that same care this year because money flowed to those people who need it, particularly children, is important.

 

Grain Exports

U.S. Market

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Mr. Speaker, three members of the U.S. International Trade Commission will be in Winnipeg to gather information about the Canadian durum wheat exports.  This committee will be making recommendations to President Clinton as to whether restrictions should be put on Canadian wheat sales.

 

          My question to the Minister of Agriculture is:  Will he take this opportunity to stand up for Canadian producers and explain to this committee the true facts, that we are not dumping durum wheat into the U.S. and that the U.S. market is gaining much more in agriculture trade than Canadians farmers are?

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  Mr. Speaker, I do genuinely appreciate the fact that my honourable friend from the New Democratic Party has come to the full recognition of the importance of our trade with our biggest trade‑‑[interjection]

 

          Members will recall that it has always been my position that once the review and the discussion about our trading practices with the United States were removed from the heated environment of Montana and North Dakota and took place in a more neutral setting like Washington, then cooler heads would prevail.

 

          I am absolutely delighted that this organization, which normally does not travel outside of Washington, has chosen to come to Winnipeg, Manitoba to hear our position.

 

          I can indicate to you and to the House that I have requested today by fax that I be given an opportunity to present myself to this commission, along with the people as you would expect that they have specifically requested to hear from:  the Canadian Grain Commission, the Canadian International Grains Institute; the Canadian Wheat Board; accredited exporters and country elevator companies.  Those are the specific organizations that this very important international review committee has requested.

 

Ms. Wowchuk:  Mr. Speaker, I hope that the minister will take a strong stand and stand up for Canadian farmers at this meeting.

 

          Since we know that the federal Minister of Agriculture has been taking a very weak stand on behalf of Canadian farmers and there is a risk that there will be caps put on the amount of durum that we can ship to the U.S., has the minister had discussions with other western Agriculture ministers to try to strengthen the position of Canadian farmers with the federal Minister of Agriculture?

 

Mr. Enns:  Mr. Speaker, I have a considerable amount of respect for the federal Minister of Agriculture of this country, and I do want to go on the record as refuting that suggestion that he has in fact not been making every possible effort to protect Canadian farmers' position on this very important matter.  I say that without fear of contradiction.  Mr. Goodale has been an energetic proponent of Canada's justification for our enhanced trade with that country.

 

          Really, this is an opportunity where it behooves us both provincially and federally to work as strongly and as co‑operatively as we can.

 

Department of Agriculture

Research and Development

 

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River):  Given that this government talks about supporting development of value‑added jobs, how can the minister justify cutting back the research and development section of his Department of Agriculture budget when we have to have the value‑added jobs?

 

          We are in disputes about durum wheat.  Why are we not working towards getting some of the extra value‑added jobs here into this province, rather than shipping wheat out and getting macaroni and other pasta products in?  How can he justify the cuts to the research and development?

 

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture):  I refute that this government has in any way reduced monies going toward any and all opportunities as value‑added.  In fact, we have found new agencies of the government.  Our Economic Committee of Cabinet works toward that end.  We have continued to support the Portage la Prairie institute.  We have a number of institutions.  It is simply not necessarily housed in the traditional place where it was housed within the Department of Agriculture.

 

          But, Mr. Speaker, allow me to take this one opportunity.  You want to talk about value‑added, then let us look at our potato industry where we have 600 to 700 people who work in Carberry.  We could do with a little bit of reasonable support allowing for the responsible and prudent use of water when it comes to irrigation to ensure that we have that kind of value‑added production taking place on the farms of Manitoba.

 

Francophone Schools Governance

Federal Funding

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Education minister.

 

          Last year, this government introduced the new Francophone School Division pursuant to the Supreme Court decision that came down in the last year.  At that time, the government indicated it would be receiving a substantial amount of money from the federal government, some $112 million I believe it was, to implement the Supreme Court decision that was divided amongst all the provinces, part of the $112 million.

 

          I want to ask the Minister of Education whether he can indicate whether this present federal government is still committed to providing those dollars to the provinces to implement this decision and what amount it would be for Manitoba and how much we will be receiving this year.

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, the question is a fair one and certainly I say to the member that the federal government says they are still committed to the policy that was announced by the former PC administration in Ottawa.

 

          The $112 million and what share should appropriately be directed toward the Province of Manitoba is, I guess I would use the words "in dispute," and at this particular point in time there is not an agreement acceptable to the Province of Manitoba as to what rightful share it should have with that $112 million.

 

Mr. Plohman:  So, Mr. Speaker, I understand the minister is saying that we have no commitment as to the amount as yet.

 

Compensation

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  I would like to ask the minister as well whether he supports the policy that we had put forward last year in raising questions on this issue in the House at the time that the legislation was introduced that no existing students in existing school divisions would be negatively impacted by the establishment of the new division and that if they were, there would be compensation for those school divisions.

 

          Has the minister accepted that policy and that principle in introducing the Francophone School Division in Manitoba, and if so, can he indicate so today?

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, there are many, many questions posed within the single question posed by the member.

 

          I would say to him that the statement made by my predecessor at that point in time still stands.  Nevertheless, when there are changes made‑‑certainly when there are students moving from a provider of the existing division to the new school division, No. 49‑‑we have put into place some money this year with respect to general funding to try and alleviate some of the impact of the change to the existing division.  With regard, though, to the changes and ultimately whether or not there is equity of funding, Mr. Speaker, we certainly believe there is equity of funding in place today.

 

Arbitration‑‑Notre Dame de Lourdes

 

Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin):  Mr. Speaker, my final question to the minister:  Can he indicate whether pursuant to Bill 34 he has appointed or taken any action with regard to the dispute over schools in the Notre Dame de Lourdes area, whether in fact an arbitrator or a committee has been appointed to deal with this issue?  If so, is there a report that has been brought forward to the minister?

 

* (1420)

 

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training):  Mr. Speaker, the member is well aware this is a most sensitive issue.  With respect to the ownership of schools per the registration vote that was conducted on behalf of the government and the whole process by former Chief Justice Monnin, we are living within the spirit and indeed the intent of Bill 34 that was brought down.

 

          I would remind the member that the government of Manitoba has no discretion with respect to the transfer of buildings of actual schools.  Mr. Speaker, outside of that, we are using whatever powers we have to try and bring to bear some orderly solution to this difference of views.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Time for Oral Questions has expired.

 

Introduction of Guests

 

Mr. Speaker:  Prior to my giving a ruling today, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the loge to my right, where we have a very good friend of all of us, Mr. Dave Blake, the former member for Minnedosa.  On behalf of all honourable members I would like to welcome you here this afternoon, sir.

 

Speaker's Ruling

 

Mr. Speaker:  During Question Period on April 27, 1994, the honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) rose on a matter of privilege and moved that the issue of a judicial compensation package now offered to provincial court judges for the purposes of retirement and the government's apparent failure to comply with Section 11.1 of The Provincial Court Act, thereby obstructing and interfering with the duties of members of the Assembly, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.  After receiving advice from members of the House, for which I thank them, I took the matter under advisement.

 

          The honourable member fulfilled the first condition of privilege by raising the matter at the first available opportunity.  As to the second condition, that of establishing a prima facie case, I am ruling that this is not a matter of privilege.

 

          As there is no Manitoba precedent for this issue, I looked to other authorities.  Joseph Maingot, the Canadian author, at page 153 in his book Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, quoting from a 1980 ruling of House of Commons Speaker Jeanne Sauve states, and I quote:  The Chair is in no position to interpret either the law or the Constitution.  Whether something which takes place in this House is constitutional or legal is not for the Chair to decide.  The Chair only decides whether we are following our own rules.

 

          Speaker Sauve went on to say:  That is spelled out in the standing orders which read, the Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order.  That is the scope of my responsibility.

 

          I would point out that our Manitoba subrule 5(1) is virtually identical to that cited by the House of Commons Speaker.

 

          The honourable member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) alleged in his matter of privilege that the government was not complying with the law.  Whether or not a law has been broken is for the courts, not the Speaker, to decide.  In this regard, I refer to Beauchesne Citation 31(9).  This citation is based on another ruling of Speaker Jeanne Sauve made in 1981.  At that time, when a matter of privilege was raised about a requirement in a statute she said, and I quote:  It is quite clear there is no question of privilege.  I remind the honourable member that failure to comply with the law is not a matter for the Speaker to determine, but rather should be decided by the courts.

 

          Also, Beauchesne Citation 168(5) is very clear.  It reads:  "The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege."

 

          Therefore, I find no prima facie case evidence of a matter of privilege and am ruling the honourable member's motion out of order.  Having done so, the honourable member is certainly entitled to raise the matter in some other way.  For example, it could be dealt with as a substantive motion by a private member.

 

MATTER OF URGENT PUBLIC IMPORTANCE

 

Sugar Beet Industry

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Mr. Speaker, under Rule 27(1), I would like to move a motion requesting a debate on a matter of urgent public importance.

 

          I move, seconded by the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), that under Rule 27, the ordinary business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance; namely, the crisis in Manitoba's sugar beet industry.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  Before recognizing the honourable Leader of the second opposition party, I believe I should remind all members that under our Rule 27(2), the mover of a motion on a matter of urgent public importance and one member of each of the other parties in the House is allowed not more than five minutes to explain the urgency of debating this matter immediately.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Speaker, I detect from the early response of members around me that they are sensitive about this issue.  I ask them to simply allow some period of time that is allowed to make the case.

 

          Firstly, under that rule, obviously the public interest must be best served by debating it today and, secondly, there is no ordinary opportunity which will allow the matter to be brought on early enough.  Mr. Speaker, I believe both of these criteria are met in this case.

 

          Clearly we heard from the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) earlier today and again in the House today that the only thing which has stopped an outright crisis so far has been the weather.  Obviously, we cannot count on that to continue.  He raises the urgency himself.  I think we all understand that.  Secondly, negotiations are, by all accounts, at a critical stage, if not very close to completion; we, of course, hope successfully.

 

          The issue that is raised that I wish to raise as a consideration today is the issue of what the contingency plan is.  To suggest that is going to have any effect, let alone an adverse effect, on current negotiations, is absolutely ludicrous.  In fact, it is irresponsible for the members of this House to suggest‑‑or to not contemplate what a contingency plan will be.

 

          I remind the minister and I remind members of this House that this government has stepped into a number of situations far before a crisis is reached, including a recent set of negotiations involving Abitibi‑Price in the member's own riding before final crisis had been reached by the parties.

 

          Mr. Speaker, the government is not a party to the negotiations, but the government is very definitely and should be an interested party in preserving these jobs and this industry in this province.  We cannot sit back and wait for this crisis not only to come to fruition but to result in the loss of a $100 million industry with all the spinoffs in this province.  We must start now.

 

          What was clear from the answers brought forward by the Minister of Labour was that he has not developed a contingency plan.  He did not have to go into the details.  What was simply asked was for him to put on the record that there would be further government involvement to ensure that the industry stayed.  Secondly, what is clear from his remarks is that he has no intention of moving into that stage in the event that negotiations fail.

 

          Mr. Speaker, I also raised with the minister whether it is the only possibility of a solution to this in the event that things do not work out.  I am not saying that.  What I have put forward is a specific suggestion that the minister immediately sit down with the board of the Crocus Investment Fund.  That is one opportunity, one alternative that I have put forward.

 

          With respect to the comments that that would not be appropriate, Mr. Speaker, I remind all members of the specific indication in the prospectus, which sets out at Section 3.03(3) the specific restrictions on investments to the Crocus Fund.  Clearly an investment in this operation, were it desirable by the parties involved, would not be restricted under the prospectus of the Crocus Fund, which is dated December 17, 1993.

 

          I also refer members to 3.03(4).  I want to just put on the record one of the primary purposes of that fund, which is that the fund will also attempt to make investments that promote employee ownership opportunities where other sources of equity or debt financing are available to create a greater degree of employee ownership than would be created by the fund's investment alone.

 

* (1430)

 

          Mr. Speaker, this is a primary goal of this fund.  I recognize what the Premier (Mr. Filmon) says, which is that time is very short, people want to plant quickly.  What I am asking the minister to do is to immediately explore those opportunities.  Today is the day.  We need to have that discussion and that debate now.  Again, this, far from prejudicing these negotiations, simply puts into place an opportunity to explore what alternatives will be there in the event that they fail.  Perhaps there are none, but what we have to do as legislators is leave no stone unturned and today is the day to start that process.  Thank you.

 

Hon. Darren Praznik (Minister of Labour):  Mr. Speaker, I will be exercising the right to speak on behalf of the government on this particular issue.  There is no doubt that there is an urgency to this particular matter, nor that there are not other opportunities today to debate this.  There certainly are not others.

 

          I want to say to members opposite‑‑and I am very certain that members of the New Democratic Party will appreciate and understand what is happening here; I have no doubt of that.  But I want to say this to the Leader of the Liberal Party and I am being very sincere in what I say to him.  I know from time to time it is easy in these opportunities to speak to MUPIs, to get into debating the issue and putting positions on the line, but we are at an extremely critical point this afternoon, the last critical point.

 

          Mr. Speaker, this morning I had opportunity to call both sides to this dispute into this building, as I indicated in Question Period.  I laid out for them what options were available to them to settle this.  What is absolutely critical‑‑and I cannot stress this enough to the Leader of the Liberal Party and I do recognize that there are larger issues about the sugar industry that he wants to get into.  I do fully appreciate his desire to have that public debate, and I certainly respect that.

 

          But what is absolutely critical to these discussions today is that the parties who have to make some decisions internally know fully that they have reached the precipice.  My great fear about getting into this debate this afternoon, and I say this as Labour minister and someone who has been at the table with both of them this morning, who is in contact with the mediator, is that anything that gives some sense of a false hope, quite frankly, that there is a solution that will delay people coming to the realization that they have reached the precipice, will put this situation where it could delay a resolution, any possible resolution this afternoon.

 

          I tell the honourable member most sincerely‑‑I know he is getting and pointing and speaking from his seat‑‑that if we do not have a resolution to this dispute in the next few hours, quite frankly, the seeders of this province that put in the beets will be out in the field seeding other crops, and this issue will be totally irrelevant.

 

          Mr. Speaker, if I could, just for a moment, plead with the member for St. James, surely this is one of those rare moments in this House where what is required is some sense that‑‑

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  I would like to remind the honourable minister it is not the member for St. James who will decide whether or not this is a matter of urgent public importance.  I would ask the honourable minister to address his remarks to the Chair.

 

Mr. Praznik:  Mr. Speaker, what I say to the Chair very clearly is there is no doubt that there is an important public interest in this issue and that today is a very critical time.

 

          I ask, through the Chair, that the Leader of the Liberal Party would reconsider putting this motion forward on the grounds of the greater interest of seeing a resolution to this dispute, rather than anyone making political hay on what could be a very serious loss to the province and the workers involved.

 

          I ask, Sir, through your Chair, if the Leader of the Liberal Party would please, appreciating the sensitivity and what is at risk for so many Manitobans here, that in the interest of allowing the parties to reach an agreement this afternoon, he withdraw his motion for a debate.

 

Mr. Steve Ashton (Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate that in raising issues before this House, I think all of us have an obligation to raise them with discretion.  Today, obviously, the situation at the Manitoba Sugar industry is very much on everyone's mind.

 

          We had a discussion ourselves.  I am not giving away any caucus confidence, Mr. Speaker, but our decision today was not to raise the matter in Question Period because of the sensitivity of the negotiations.  Indeed, I would go further to suggest that there be an even greater obligation when it comes to raising this very sensitive issue in the form of this particular motion.  If this particular motion is to be put to the House and to be adopted by the House, we will then spend the rest of the day not debating Health Estimates or Rural Development or drug patent law later today but debating what is a very, very sensitive situation.

 

          I believe‑‑and while we do not agree entirely with the government's position in terms of the sugar beet industry, the need for a long plan, et cetera, I certainly share the comments put forward by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Praznik) speaking on this particular issue.

 

          The fact is unless a resolution is reached between the parties, we are into some very uncharted waters within probably a space of 24 hours.  I do not want to even comment further on the potential implications because even that, I think, is very much dealing with a sensitive situation.

 

          I believe the appropriate thing in terms of the Liberal Party‑‑they have raised the issue.  I consider that to have been somewhat inadvisable and inappropriate, Mr. Speaker, and I could comment on the ironies of the Liberal Party raising this issue, given the fact they were instrumental in voting out final offer selection which would have provided a mechanism for all parties to resolve this particular dispute.  I could get into a lengthy debate in terms of the position of the Liberal Party on labour issues, but I will not, and I will ask that we deal with this matter fairly quickly.

 

          Our position is that it would be absolutely inappropriate, given the sensitivity of the negotiations right now, to even discuss this any further than the comments we are putting on the record.  We would hope that this matter would not be put forward to the House, and we will accept the responsible, appropriate course, which is not in any way, shape or form to do anything that might affect the very sensitive negotiations.

 

Mr. Speaker:  I would like to thank all honourable members for their advice as to whether the motion proposed by the honourable member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) should be debated today.

 

          I did receive the notice required under our subrule 27.(1).  According to Rule 27 and Beauchesne's Citations 389 and 390, there are two conditions which must be met in order for a matter of urgent public importance to be proceeded with.  They are:  a) the subject matter must be so pressing that the ordinary opportunities for debate will not allow it to be brought on early enough; and b) it must be shown that the public interest will suffer if the matter is not given immediate attention.

 

          I acknowledge that the subject of the honourable member's motion is an important one, but I am not convinced that the public interest will suffer if it is not debated today.

 

          There are, in my opinion, other opportunities for the honourable member to debate this issue.  The Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism will be under consideration shortly in the committee room, perhaps as early as today.  Other opportunities to debate this issue could arise during the consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Labour.  In addition, I note that the honourable member for St. James could also raise this matter under a grievance, as he has not used that opportunity for debate in this session.

 

          Therefore, I am ruling that the honourable member's motion does not meet the criteria set out in our rules and practices.  The honourable member's motion is out of order as a matter of urgent public importance.

 

* (1440)

 

Voice Vote

 

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, I would challenge the ruling.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Order, please.  The question before the House is that the ruling of the Chair having been challenged, all those in favour of that motion, please say yea.

 

Some Honourable Members:  Yea.

 

Mr. Speaker:  All those in favour of sustaining the ruling of the Chair‑‑

 

An Honourable Member:  Yea.

 

Mr. Speaker:  Okay, we will do it that way.  That is better.  That will not hurt anybody.  So the question before the House is shall the ruling of the Chair be sustained?

 

          All those in favour of sustaining the Chair, please say yea.

 

Some Honourable Members:  Yea.

 

Mr. Speaker:  All those opposed, please say nay.

 

Some Honourable Members:  Nay.

 

Mr. Speaker:  That is better.  The Nays have it.

 

Formal Vote

 

Mr. Lamoureux (Second Opposition House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, Yeas and Nays.

 

Mr. Speaker:  A recorded vote having been requested, call in the members.

 

Division

 

A RECORDED VOTE was taken, the result being as follows:

 

Yeas

 

Ashton, Barrett, Chomiak, Cummings, Dacquay, Derkach, Dewar, Doer, Downey, Driedger, Ducharme, Enns, Ernst, Evans (Brandon East), Evans (Interlake), Filmon, Findlay, Friesen, Gilleshammer, Helwer, Hickes, Lathlin, Laurendeau, Mackintosh, Maloway, Manness, Martindale, McAlpine, McCrae, McIntosh, Mitchelson, Orchard, Pallister, Penner, Plohman, Praznik, Reid, Reimer, Render, Robinson, Rose, Santos, Schellenberg, Stefanson, Storie, Sveinson, Vodrey.

 

Nays

 

Edwards, Gaudry, Gray, Kowalski, Lamoureux, McCormick.

 

Mr. Clerk (William Remnant):  Yeas 47, Nays 6.

 

Mr. Speaker:  The ruling of the Chair has been sustained.

 

* (1500)

 

ORDERS OF THE DAY

 

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader):  Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), 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.

 

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 Departments of Rural Development, and Industry, Trade and Tourism; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Health.

 

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

 

RURAL DEVELOPMENT

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):  Order, please.  Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.  This afternoon the section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Rural Development.  When the committee last sat it had been considering item 13.7(b)(1) on page 138 of the Estimates book.

 

          Item 13.7(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $173,000‑‑pass; item 13.7(b)(2) Other Expenditures $52,100‑‑pass.  I am sorry, the Member for Lakeside, Interlake, I am sorry.

 

Mr. Clif Evans (Interlake):  Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.  You have muffled that up good.

 

An Honourable Member:  Order, please.  That is a reflection of the minister.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  I certainly do apologize if the Acting Deputy Chairperon took that in any other way than I meant it.

 

          I have here a letter dated June of 1993 from a Hugh Brown, community planner, I believe out of Selkirk, and it is Rural Development.  It is to Ms. Jean Clearwater, who is the chairperson of the Grahamdale Development Corporation.  It is with respect to the REDI Infrastructure Development program, Steeprock Marina expansion.

 

          I can table the letter.  It is almost a year ago, but I was contacted by Ms. Clearwater just a few weeks ago with a package on their development.  I guess in her cover letter, if I can just read from it:  We have applied to the provincial REDI program in 1992.  They would entertain the idea of funding the moving of the entrance but not the marina.  We stressed to them at that time that without the marina there was no point in moving the roadway.  We felt that the marina did come under their infrastructure program, but unfortunately, it was not looked at favourably.

 

          Since then they have applied to the Manitoba Environment to change their position on one roadway and doing it another way.  My question is:  how, if in any way, can Rural Development, under the infrastructure program, get involved with the Grahamdale Development Corporation, and what should they do?

 

* (1510)

 

Hon. Leonard Derkach (Minister of Rural Development):  Our development offices around the province are always prepared to assist individuals like this particular one to try and work out problems if they can.  I would suggest that perhaps this individual come in contact with our regional office and lay out the problems and then we would certainly be prepared to examine what it is that the situation is, and then approach the appropriate departments or individuals to try and work the matter through.

 

          Now, I am not familiar with that individual's details, but if the member would like to share them with us, we would certainly be prepared to take whatever action we can.  I cannot be more specific than that at this time because I do not know the specific details of the situation.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Yes, I will.  Actually, I will copy what I have received, and I am sure the department somewhere might have most of this.  I will certainly do that and have it to the minister on Monday.

 

          I am not sure whether it is the matter of the 50‑50 funding that they do not have available, but I think the question is, they are looking for a way and a means to be able to find a way and means to be able to continue with this project so that they can also work on establishing the marina in the area.  So I have just been asked to discuss it with you and see how we can approach it.

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, this letter from Mr. Brown, the Community Planner, indicates that the applicants should proceed by completing the attached application and submitting it to the office.  It indicates what is necessary in the application, and then if there are questions with respect to the filling out of the application, the individuals should contact the office.

 

          My understanding is that is where the project is at right now, and that once the individual approaches our office, we will certainly be prepared to work with them.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  I will pass that on to Ms. Clearwater and to the development corporation that is in charge of it.  I am sure that we will be hearing from the Minister of Environment as to whether their application for the new roadway is accepted and then proceed from there.  What I am looking for is opening the door to continue this.

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Reimer):  Item 13.7.(b)(3) Programs $6,959,100‑‑pass; 7.(c) Special Projects $2,000,000‑‑pass.

 

          Item 13.7.(d) Unconditional Grants‑‑Rural Community Development $4,000,000.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  This could probably have waited for the Minister's Salary, but I would like to deal with it.

 

          On May 2, our Leader brought to the attention of the Premier a situation with Mr. Rolla‑‑the Rolla family‑‑I have dealt with it, and I know that I have made many, many inquiries on this and have spoken to the minister's department, the environmental department.  I would just like to see if we can do something with this.  If I might just quote from the Executive Council's Estimates, the Premier's words:  I want to assure the member that the Department of Rural Development continues to deal with Mr. Rolla and to pursue this issue in terms of the municipal responsibility.  It has not been dropped, and we will attempt to try to resolve it through whatever authority we have at our disposal.

 

          The minister's department was made aware of this when I was called by Mr. Rolla a year ago September.  I guess it is a struggle between his situation, his family situation and the local municipality, and it just seems there is no where and no way that this family has to go.  They are looking to government, some department.  They have gone to the Premier with it, and the Premier's department has talked to them, to the family; we have.  I would really like to hear or to be able to pass on to Mr. Rolla just where the Department of Rural Development is taking this, how far they are taking it, and just what their attempt is at resolving this matter, what they are doing with it.

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just for the record.  I hope we are talking about the same individual.  The individual we have been in contact with is Mr. Merv Rolla.  The matter is one which came to our attention about a year or more ago and has been dealt with since that time.  The Disaster Assistance Board has certainly been, in my estimation, been very fair with Mr. Rolla and has probably gone further than would be the norm, if you like, in his particular situation.  There does not seem to be any satisfaction by Mr. Rolla in terms of what action has been taken, but basically this is a municipal matter at this time and one that has to be resolved by the municipality.

 

          Our department is very open in talking to Mr. Rolla.  I can tell the member that staff from my own office have been on the telephone with Mr. Rolla for not 10 or 15 minutes a day but indeed for hours at a time on a daily basis.  It just does not seem that we can satisfy Mr. Rolla's concerns.  I can tell you that through the Disaster Board, I believe Mr. Rolla received‑‑the Disaster Assistance Board has paid something in the neighbourhood of $50,000 to improve drainage around Mr. Rolla's property, and certainly, I believe, that has been more than fair considering the impact of damages that were caused by weather conditions.

 

          Now, there are greater problems there than just what occurred in that particular incident.  It goes back, and also it has a great deal to do with the municipality and Mr. Rolla, so I think we have probably gone as far as we can.  Certainly we are not closing the door.  We will continue to leave our doors open to Mr. Rolla to contact our office, but I think that basically we have treated this individual very fairly.  We have been in contact with the municipality to try and address the situation as well, and I think the municipality probably has the same view that we do in that they have tried to address the concerns as best they can.

 

          (Mr. Marcel Laurendeau, Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Just reiterating Mr. Doer's words and, of course, the reply from the Premier on this, given that under the provincial Planning Act‑‑and it is an act of this Legislature‑‑municipalities are constitutional creatures of the provincial government, that there is some follow‑up from both the Premier's senior staff and the minister or the minister's staff, so that the municipality knows that we just do not let citizens get potentially treated this way without‑‑about the concern and fairness in dealing with a matter such as this.  Is there really nothing that can be done in discussions with the municipality, with Mr. Rolla or with the department?

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess we cannot say that nothing has been done.  Indeed, a tremendous amount of staff time and effort, both I think at the municipal and the departmental level, has been expended on this particular situation, including staff time from the Disaster Assistance Board.  I believe that the Disaster Assistance Board was very generous in their award to Mr. Rolla and in trying to correct some of the problem, but I believe that the problem is deeper than just simply a natural weather kind of situation that has caused him problems.  I think the problems are ones which probably should have been taken care of before Mr. Rolla proceeded with the construction of his home there.

 

* (1520)

 

          Nevertheless, we have tried to address them; we have tried to be as open as we can.  As a matter of fact, my deputy minister was in touch with the municipality today on the issue, so I have to say that staff from my department and also, I think, the municipality have really been sincere in trying to address this particular problem.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Item 7.(d) Unconditional Grants‑‑Rural Community Development $4,000,000.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  On the infrastructure section of the REDI program, can the minister just explain what falls under the infrastructure program as far as the initiatives or the programs that are available?  What falls under that category that people can apply for and under?

 

Mr. Derkach:  A clarification.  Is the member talking about the federal‑provincial infrastructure program?

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  No, the REDI program itself.

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the infrastructure program under the REDI umbrella, if you like, is one which was established to assist municipalities or communities, or businesses within communities, to improve water, sewer and energy services, transportation access, waste disposal facilities and telecommunications which might assist in the infrastructure works to an existing or expanding business, or a new business that is developing in a particular community.

 

          Our department, under the REDI umbrella, has a component called infrastructure where we can give to a municipality or component of a project an amount of money which would not exceed $100,000 within one municipality, but if there were two municipalities that wanted to go jointly on a particular infrastructure project, they could access up to $500,000 on a sharing basis in that we would pay 50 percent, up to $500,000, and they would pay 50 percent, up to $500,000.

 

          So that is the type of infrastructure program that is available under the REDI program.  We have had to date 10 projects under the infrastructure component which have been approved, and I think the total is something close to $500,000 so far.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Could he explain transportation access, meaning a roadway, or exactly what is meant by transportation access?

 

Mr. Derkach:  Transportation access would mean either an approach into a property, perhaps a driveway that would be into the particular plant.  It is an access which would allow transportation into the particular business or plant.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  And that business could be a private business, commercial one, a mall?

 

Mr. Derkach:  The program has to be tied to business development of some kind, a business development project.  In other words, it cannot be an existing industrial park, and the town council comes to us and says, we would like to put a new road into our existing industrial park.  This is more a program that is designed to give access to a business that is expanding, or a new business that is locating in an area.  So it is not to maintain existing roadways and roads to industrial parks and that sort of thing.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  But it would not categorize under a private individual wanting to perhaps expand his business, or having the potential to expand his business, and going to the local municipality and asking for the supports through the REDI program to have a road access to, let us say, to his parking lot as a commercial parking lot.

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if it is an access road to a business that is expanding, then it would qualify.  I give the example of the Monsanto plant in Morden where we assisted the municipality in building an access road into the plant.  So whether it is a new plant or an expansion of a plant, those kinds of projects would qualify under the infrastructure program.

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Under that program, would a parking lot be considered part of that infrastructure?

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not like to support parking lots because parking lots, in many cases, are used jointly by perhaps service industries, by others, whether it is service businesses such as grocery stores, clothing stores, etc., and a business may be locating in a mall within that area and may want to improve the parking lot.  That is very difficult for us to support.  I would not categorically reject every application that comes for that kind of infrastructure, but we would examine that on a case‑by‑case basis very carefully to ensure that kind of infrastructure is specifically designed for that business and not for a group of businesses within a mall or within a square.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Shall the item pass?  The item is accordingly passed.

 

          Resolution 13.7:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $14,006,100 for Rural Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

 

          The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the Department of Rural Development is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary.  At this point we request that the minister's staff leave the table for the consideration of this item.

 

Mr. Derkach:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, before we consider this particular item, I would just like to put some concluding remarks on the record.  First of all, I would like to thank my staff‑‑my deputy minister and all my staff‑‑for the excellent work they have done throughout the year, not only in preparing these Estimates, but indeed in carrying out the many programs that we have embarked on.  I think it is through the excellent efforts of staff within my department that we have been able to deliver some excellent programs in rural Manitoba.

 

          By and large, I feel that municipalities throughout Manitoba, communities in rural Manitoba are generally pleased with some of the programs that have been developed.  They have been developed with input from the communities with the grassroots, if you like, input, and indeed I think staff have been very responsive.  There are a couple of areas that staff in my department have been very active in.  One is in the Grow Bonds and the REDI program.  There is a new area that is emerging in the whole area of telecommunications and call centres on which staff from my department are working very aggressively with communities.  Our economic development officers are out there trying to make sure that the community is revitalized in every way, shape and form.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to just conclude by thanking my staff for doing a very excellent job in the Department of Rural Development.

 

          I would also like to thank my critics who have taken a very mature approach to this particular department and have dealt with issues specifically, and we have not strayed too far from dealing with the important issues that concern rural Manitoba.  Thank you very much.

 

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):  I would like to just add to the comments of the minister, to say thank you to the staff also.  I know I have a few other questions, but I will deal with them with the minister at a later date.  Again, thank you to the staff for the support that they give to the critics and thank you to the minister also.

 

* (1530)

 

Mr. Clif Evans:  Also, in conclusion‑‑and I have done this I do not know how many times as far as the minister's staff goes; it will probably be the third time‑‑I thank them also for their time and effort during Estimates and also in dealing with me on matters.  When I come to them with a problem, I am treated very well by them.  As far as Rural Development goes, I know that we will be keeping an eye on the department.  It is very important to me and, I know, to our side, and I would like to see more of the youth involvement that we have seen in Brandon.  Perhaps there is something further that can be put together that we can have the youth in rural Manitoba work alongside Rural Development.  So those are my closing comments.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  I thank the committee for an enjoyable day.

 

          We will now deal with line 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.

 

          Resolution 13.1:  RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1,219,400 for Rural Development for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.

 

          That concludes the Department of Rural Development.  We will now be moving on to the Department of Industry Trade and Tourism.

 

          Would the committee like to take a five‑minute recess to allow the critics an opportunity?  Five minutes.  We are in recess.

 

          The committee recessed at 3:32 p.m.

 

                                                                                         

 

After Recess

 

          The committee resumed at 3:38 p.m.

 

INDUSTRY, TRADE AND TOURISM

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau):  The Committee of Supply, please come to order.  This section of the Committee of Supply will be considering the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

 

          Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism have an opening statement?

 

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):  Yes, Mr. Deputy Chair.  I want to just ask the Liberal opposition if it would be possible to try and do Estimates tomorrow afternoon as I have an internal trade ministers' meeting on Monday and Tuesday, which I am co‑chairing, with all the ministers across Canada and the federal government.  If we could accommodate trying to conclude the Estimates, it would allow me the opportunity Monday to carry out that responsibility‑‑if we could possibly do it tomorrow afternoon, do the Estimates tomorrow afternoon, and this evening if that would help.  I spoke to the New Democratic critic who said he has a commitment later on in the week which is difficult for him to extend it.  So I just wonder if it would be possible, the Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry)‑‑

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Order, please.  I would like to advise the honourable minister that we would have to get the leave from the House to decide whether we are going to sit.  So, if the House leaders could get together this afternoon before six o'clock, because it has to be announced in the House before six.  So, if you want to come to some type of informal arrangement, that is fine, and the House can advise me of how we are going to handle the committee later than that.

 

Mr. Neil Gaudry (St. Boniface):  In other words, you would want to sit this evening and tomorrow afternoon, but your Leader is saying the Member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) cannot sit tonight.  Is that it?

 

Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin Flon):  I can sit tonight.

 

Mr. Gaudry:  Oh, okay.  I will find out, because I cannot personally.

 

Mr. Storie:  You cannot?

 

Mr. Gaudry:  Well, I am not the critic.

 

* (1540)

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Let us not get all the informal discussion on the record.  I think we can allow our House leaders to have that discussion.  At this time, we will get the committee rolling, and if we can inform the House leaders to do the negotiating, possibly carry on and have this meeting go.

 

          The honourable minister, with his opening statement, please.

 

Mr. Downey:  Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.  I will try and move through it fairly quickly so we can get on with some of the questions that the members may have.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the 1994‑95 fiscal year spending Estimates for the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to the Committee of Supply of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.  As you know, the challenge of economic development in this province changes only in the detail from year to year.  The broad strategy of this government and this department remains essentially the same as it has been for the past six years.  In that time, this government has worked to turn Manitoba around from an uncompetitive tax and fiscal structure and make Manitoba an attractive place in which to live and invest, to steer the province through a difficult recession without sacrificing essential services and position our province to prosper in a new globally oriented economy.

 

          As we head into another fiscal year, the state of our provincial economy is looking better than it has for some time.  For example, our total employment in 1993 averaged 490,000 or 6,000 higher than in 1992.  In 1993, our job growth rate was 1.2 percent, the third highest in Canada.

 

          (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

 

          Statistics Canada says those 6,000 new jobs were all in the private sector, and 5,000 of these jobs, or 83 percent of the total, were full‑time positions.  This was much better than the national performance where only 40 percent of the 1993 job growth was in full‑time positions.

 

          The Manitoba growth rate for full‑time jobs last year was 1.3 percent, the second best in Canada and more than twice the national gain of 0.6 percent.

 

          For 1994 our job prospects are even brighter.  The Canada‑Manitoba Infrastructure Works Agreement is expected to create thousands of new jobs in Manitoba over the next two years.  In the past few weeks, the agreement has generated nearly $140‑million worth of projects, which are expected to create at least 2,400 new jobs direct.

 

          That is just the beginning.  More than $60 million of infrastructure funding is yet to be allocated.  These infrastructure projects will act as an immediate stimulus to the Manitoba economy, creating hundreds of jobs almost instantly.  We expect a major boost to Manitoba's retail and service sectors as well from the anticipated increase in consumer spending.

 

          As well, predictions from improved growth rates and capital investment, a significant drop in the number of bankruptcies last year, and an unemployment rate that is amongst the lowest in the country all bode well for the future.

 

          In the fiscal year 1994‑95, we are predicting steady growth with employment, personal income and government revenues below pre‑recession levels for some time to come.

 

          As a government, we believe our primary responsibility is to create a stable and positive fiscal environment in which all Manitobans can prosper.  The greatest contribution we can make in this area is a balanced budget.  As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) stated in our recent budget, we are on track to achieve that by fiscal year 1996‑97.  Our government is actually aiming for a budget surplus of $150 million by 1997‑98.  For 1994‑95, we are projecting a deficit of $296 million, which represents $165 million or nearly 36 percent decline from the deficit forecast for fiscal '93‑94.

 

          Clearly, we are winning the war against government debt.  Moreover, we have now held the line on major taxes in our past seven budgets, and we continue to seek ways to decrease the tax burden, particularly on smaller businesses and firms in certain strategic sectors.

 

          Manitoba Industry, Trade and Tourism sees its role as a facilitator and catalyst for economic growth and sustainable development.  More specifically, all our programs are aimed at advancing our broad role and mission which can be set out in the following eight points:

 

          First, we must foster the conditions necessary for creating, retaining, expanding and recruiting business enterprise and jobs that go along with it.  We must encourage an entrepreneurial and innovative economic climate through partnership with the private sector, labour, research and educational institutions, communities and other agencies of all government at all levels.  We must identify and encourage business to capitalize on Manitoba's comparative economic advantages and resource strengths.  We must help business gain access to investment capital.  We must encourage the development and commercial application of advanced technologies.  We must foster the overall growth and diversification of domestic and international trade.  We must market Manitoba as a unique tourist destination and help companies and communities develop world‑class tourism attractions.  Finally, we must provide a variety of accessible and useful business information and advisory services.

 

          Let me turn now to some of the initiatives our department has been pursuing and will continue to pursue in the year ahead.  First is the critical issue of investment capital.  Capital is the engine of business growth and of job creation, ultimately the very basis of our prosperity of our province and of our quality of life.  Without adequate financing, businesses are limited to their ability to upgrade technology, develop new products and services, and pursue new markets‑‑in a word, to be competitive.  However, with the dynamic capital market and a strong base of entrepreneurs, promising ideas can be transformed into commercial products and successful enterprises, thus improving access to capital remains a high priority for our government.

 

          Recently our government set up a 13‑member task force on capital markets to better understand investment markets in this province and address related concerns.  The task force is looking especially at ways to increase access to capital for small‑ and medium‑sized businesses.  It is expected to report later this spring and recommend several courses of action for developing the local capital market in Manitoba.

 

          This year the department's budget includes $200,000 for the introduction of the small business expansion fund.  This fund, which will comprise contributions from government, financial institutions and businesses themselves, will aim to reduce the risk of lending to small‑ and medium‑sized companies.  This new fund builds on the success of the department's Business Start program, a loan guarantee program that has helped create hundreds of new businesses and jobs since its inception in 1990.

 

          Our 1994‑95 Estimates include an additional $200,000 that will enable our staff, in partnership with Manitoba Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, to plan a wide range of activities and festivities to celebrate Manitoba's 125th birthday in 1995.  The tourism initiative plans to capitalize on this occasion using it as a primary theme in its 1995 promotional strategy.

 

          We expect to welcome home many former Manitobans, and I encourage each of you to plan to welcome your friends and family home in 1995.

 

          Thirdly, recognizing the importance of advanced technology and innovation to our economy, the department's support for Manitoba Centres of Excellence research at the University of Manitoba will continue.  Our 1994‑95 Estimates include an additional $200,000 for this purpose.  We certainly hope the Centres of Excellence research will complement and support the department's ongoing effort to foster the development and early commercialization of health care products and of course the work of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council to promote advanced manufacturing technologies.

 

          Another issue of great concern to our department is interprovincial barriers to trade.  As a trading economy that exports almost half of what we produce and that sells most of our exports to other provinces, Manitoba depends on gaining access to other provinces as well as other nations.

 

          While we are generally encouraged with the potential now offered by the North American Free Trade Agreement, there are still hundreds of barriers within Canada that restrict the flow of goods, services, money and people between provinces.  These restrictions lead to inefficient use of resources, limit industries' ability to seek economies of scale and ultimately increase both taxes and costs of consumer goods.

 

          In December of 1992, the federal‑provincial Committee of Ministers on Internal Trade began negotiations aimed at reaching a comprehensive agreement on internal trade barriers.  Manitoba has been an active participant in these talks which are expected to produce an agreement by June 30, 1994.

 

          At this time, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would also like to recognize the work of my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), who has co‑chaired the internal trade ministers' work, and thank him for his work and efforts in this area, and look forward to carry on with some success that we hope will be able to be achieved, again, meetings that take place here on Monday and Tuesday.  Hopefully we can have an agreement by the end of June.

 

          As I mentioned earlier, our department, and indeed our government, are committed to nurturing an environment in which an entrepreneurship and innovators can flourish.  To this end, the Economic Innovation and Technology Council and the Clerk of the Executive Council recently launched a joint venture to encourage entrepreneurship within government to improve the quality of client services provided by government and to eliminate duplication and overlap in how those services are provided.

 

* (1550)

 

          As well, an advisory public private sector panel has been struck to review the process of setting business regulations, and I am pleased the Member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Pallister) is chairing this committee.  It will consult with business on such issues as developing a code of conduct for business regulations, pre‑enactment consultation and reducing red tape, with its report expected by June 30 of this year.

 

          In presenting the Estimates of this department in 1993, my colleague, the Honourable Eric Stefanson, explained the departmental restructuring that had recently taken place and spoke of the six strategic sectors that I, T & T is focusing its efforts on.  These sectors, you will recall, are health care industries, aerospace, information and telecommunications, agri‑food, environmental industries and tourism.  Each sector has a strong competitive cluster of companies here in Manitoba on which to build, or represents an industry that we believe will see tremendous growth in the world economy.  Moreover, most are high technology fields where innovation is key, and with innovation comes the potential for spin‑off benefits from other industries.

 

          Over the past 12 months, we have seen important developments in each of these areas.  While our department certainly cannot take credit for all of these advances, we have supported our partners in the private sector in many direct and indirect ways.

 

          In the health care industries, biotechnology has emerged as the dominant subsector in the past year.  Novopharm Biotechnology has made a strong contribution through its investment and development work in the therapies for treating brain tumours and cancer.  This work employs about 20 scientists.

 

          Other companies moving steadily ahead include Apotex Fermentation Inc., which has completed a $17.5‑million expansion of its manufacturing capacity and created 18 new jobs.  Our department assisted Apotex with a $2.2‑million loan and Biovail Lifesciences, which has negotiated licensing agreements with major multinational companies and will likely be hiring more people as it begins manufacturing here.  Rh Pharmaceuticals, which has also seen healthy growth in the past year, is now ready to introduce various products developed in its existing research facilities in Manitoba.

 

          In the aerospace sector, the cancellation of the EH‑101 helicopter contract was of course devastating news to Manitoba.  However, other developments in North American industry have had a positive impact on our industry, and several companies, including Bristol Aerospace, Boeing Canada Technology and Standard Aero have picked up new business.

 

          I should say, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that the cancellation of the EH‑101, I believe, has caused the layoff of some over 100 engineers that were trained and educated here at the University of Manitoba and are having to find jobs in other industry‑related activities here in the province, but it was very devastating to several of the companies that were relying on that contract.

 

          Our department has been working hard to support the sector through the various partnership arrangements, organizing the Manitoba Aerospace Forum and publishing an industry capabilities brochure and company director.

 

          In addition, our aerospace initiative staff organized a Manitoba exhibit for the Airshow Canada last August, an information booth at major shows in Britain in September and will take part in the Farnborough Airshow this fall.

 

          Finally, we are working vigorously to foster the development of a Spaceport Canada, the proposed commercial sounding rocket and satellite launch facility at the Churchill Research Range.

 

          Under the Information and Telecommunications Initiatives, the department has attracted six new call management centres to Manitoba in the last year, with the prospects of creating as many as a thousand new jobs.  These call centre operations include AT&T, Transtec, Canada Post, CP Rail, Stentor, all of them being in Winnipeg, GWE Group Inc. in Brandon, and Central Canada Telemanagement in Russell.  There are other hot prospects in the wings, which together could generate well over 2,000 jobs.

 

          There have been several significant developments in the agrifood sector in 1993‑94, including Ready Foods Ltd., which has completed a $3.4‑million capital program to build a new plant in Winnipeg and purchase new automated equipment.  This project will help retain 130 existing jobs and create some 50 new positions.  Our department has assisted Ready Foods with a $500,000 loan.

 

          Woodstone Foods has announced a $1.6‑million expansion to its Portage la Prairie pea processing plant.  It is expected to add up to an additional 20 new jobs within the next year or two to its current 50 employees.

 

          Supreme Produce is building a $1‑million minicarrot plant, which will create up to 25 new jobs.

 

          Winkler Meats has completed a $400,000 expansion of their meat processing plant.  This will enable them to double their production of fresh and processed pork and create an additional 10 jobs.

 

          Our department was successful at attracting Gilbert International from out of province to Arborg where they are establishing a miniquiche plant, and it should create some 15 jobs.

 

          Keystone Grain has invested $900,000 in resurrecting a sunflower dehulling plant in Winkler, creating some 20 jobs.

 

          Meanwhile, the department is continuing its efforts to promote export development through its assistance of the Manitoba Food Processors Association and the Food Beverage Canada Association.  This latter group, which we were instrumental in setting up, is an umbrella group representing the four Western Canadian Food Processor Association.  Both these associations, of course, are focused on co‑ordination and co‑operation among agrifood companies in developing export markets.

 

          In the environmental field, our Environmental Industries Development Initiative has awarded grants totalling over $70,000, and these grants went to New World Technologies which remanufactures laser printer toner cartridges, Nemco Resources which recycles plastic containers, Western Industrial Services Ltd. which cleans and transports hazardous and other kinds of waste, and International Fibreboard which uses old newspaper and wood chips to make fibreboard.

 

          Besides their environmental benefits, these projects have generated more than a million and a half in total investment and about 70 jobs.  Our department has financially supported and works closely with the Manitoba Environmental Industries Association and has also assisted the Canadian Environmental Technology Association to set up offices in Winnipeg.

 

          Tourism remains a major industry for this province, bringing in more than $372 million in annual revenues from out‑of‑province visitors.  It employs over some 20,000 Manitobans and overall contributes more than a billion dollars to our economy each year.  Well, 1993 saw small tourism growth across Canada.  The number of American tourists visiting Manitoba increased by 2.5 percent, which I think is a positive sign.  In 1994‑95, we will maintain a strong focus on attracting U.S. visitors, taking advantage of the low Canadian dollar through incentives aimed at the American market.

 

          Our marketing strategy is also aimed to capitalize on Manitoba's diverse attractions in outdoor adventure culture festivals and events and various urban tourist products.  The Canada‑Manitoba Tourism Agreement offers the department new support for market and product development.  We will also continue to provide visitor information services through six travel information centres, including the new Manitoba Travel Idea Centre at The Forks, which will be officially opened later this month.  I invite all members to participate.

 

          Finally I would like to discuss one specific economic development initiative program which we feel is successfully advancing the department's objectives.  The Manitoba Industrial Opportunities Program, or MIOP, provides financial incentives to companies seeking to locate or expand in Manitoba.  The program requires certain benefits to Manitoba in terms of job creation or capital expenditures.  In 1993‑94, MIOP approved six loans ranging from $500,000 to $2.2 million, with an expectation of nearly 600 jobs being created or retained in Manitoba.  Total capital investment is estimated to be over $31 million.

 

          This then provides a brief overview of the key strategies, initiatives and results of my department's programs, both reviewing 1993 and '94 and looking ahead to the current fiscal year.  We believe we are preparing Manitoba for a diversified, innovative and competitive future, building on our traditional strengths and seizing new opportunities in emerging world markets as they appear for the benefit and prosperity of all Manitobans.

 

          Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in closing my remarks, I would like to acknowledge the work of the previous minister, whom I had the privilege of following in the portfolio, the previous two ministers, seeing as the one prior to him just walked in the room.  I have to acknowledge him as well, seeing as I want a favour from him.

 

          I also want to acknowledge at this time the work of Mr. Paul Goyan, who has gone on to the Department of Education to become the deputy minister responsible for the training component within that department, a very capable and a very good person to work with.  I just want to acknowledge on the record the work that Paul has done within the department, and I want to indicate as well how much I enjoyed working with him.  As well, I look forward to working with the individuals I will be introducing and all of the other departmental people who I think commit their time and their lives in a very committed way to making Manitoba a better place to work and do business and for our families to live.

 

          Thank you, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson.

 

* (1600)

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose):  I thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism for those comments.  Does the official opposition critic, the honourable member for Flin Flon, have any opening comments?

 

Mr. Storie:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I thought, when the minister was thanking previous ministers, he may have been talking about myself.

 

          I certainly have some affinity with the work that is being done in this department, and I want to commend the minister for one of the, I guess, best‑read speeches as opening remarks.  If there was an Academy Award for that performance, I think this committee should offer it to the minister, because, of course, much of what the minister said, much of the rhetoric and much of the tone of the minister's remarks is belied by the facts that Manitobans face, and contrary to what the minister says, Manitobans are not better off after six years of this minister's and other ministers of this government's leadership.

 

          The fact is that we have fewer jobs today in Manitoba than we did in 1988.  That is a fact, an irrefutable fact.  The minister, I guess, ignores the fact that the number of people unemployed is higher, ignores the fact that despite, yes, some successes over the last six years, some successes over the last year, on balance we have lost thousands and thousands, as many as 15,000 manufacturing jobs over the last few years, and the impact on our economy has been staggering.

 

          I noticed in the paper today, and I am sure the minister did not fail to notice the fact, that the number of bankruptcies has declined a few percentage points.  This was deemed to be good news, but we are still talking about hundreds of bankruptcies, hundreds and hundreds in the first quarter of this year.

 

          The fact of the matter is that Manitoba's small business, particularly the retail sector, and that was pointed out in the article, is suffering.  Part of the reason for that, of course, is a campaign by the government to in effect lower wages, a lack of commitment on the part of the government to maintain jobs, not just to create jobs with the private sector and through government agencies and government support, but a lack of initiative in protecting jobs.

 

          I met with the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce.  I have met with chambers of commerce across the province, and I can tell you that the best single indicator of small business success in any province, in any jurisdiction, in any country, is the population of people who are working.  It is that simple.  The small business sector thrives when people are working.

 

          There is, I think, a lack of focus on the government's industrial strategy, a lack of focus on the government's small business strategy and a lack of recognition of the role of government in supporting both the industrial sector and the small business sector in the province as well as having a hand in serving as a partner in the long‑term policy directions that the province sets.

 

          I am not going to spend a lot of time on the minister's opening remarks.  I wish the minister, as is tradition, would give us a copy, and I am sure the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards) would like a copy of the minister's opening remarks so at some point we can shred them. [interjection] No, I meant as opposed to just throwing them in the garbage.

 

          Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I want to just spend some time on one other topic that the minister addressed in his opening remarks and that was in relation to telecommunications.  The minister is talking about the six new businesses, call centres is what he referred to them as, and they are a service sector business.

 

          The fact is that companies like GWE, which are providing some jobs in the community of Brandon, and a number of other smaller companies in other communities in the province which are providing jobs, are very susceptible to economic ups and downs.  They are also the kinds of jobs that can move in and out of provinces and jurisdictions with tremendous ease.  They are also the kind of jobs where the term "long‑term employment" means a month.  For many, many of these types of occupations a month in them is a long time.  The wages are low end of the service sector, certainly, $5, $6 quite often, very few benefits.  It is no substitute for a strong manufacturing sector.

 

          We talked about the telecommunications industry.  Well, the telecommunications industry on the manufacturing side has not been nearly as successful.  We need only talk about Northern Telecom, talk about the jobs that are being lost there, the manufacturing jobs.  We need to have, I think, a recognition that it is not just the service end of the telecommunications information transfer component of our economy‑‑we need to be involved in the manufacturing and high‑end servicing, so we need the computer skills and the technology skills to create higher paying, higher skill jobs in the province.

 

          Simply being an operator at a call centre, and they are not paid, as I said, substantial wages, is not a real long‑term commitment to the economy that manufacturing type jobs would be.  So there may have been limited success; there have been some other I think failures that the minister did not talk about, including the Royal Trust jobs and the MacLeod‑Stedman jobs that were supposed to be coming from Toronto, et cetera.

 

          In terms of the whole high‑tech information technology areas, one of the areas where the government I think has missed the boat is in using the information technology centre.  The InfoTech Centre, which was established in 1985 or '86 and established on Ness Avenue, which brought together some of the largest computer hardware manufacturers and some of the software manufacturers, trying to create a centre of excellence in terms of the use of computer technology, both for small business and the educational field, that initiative seems to have lost a lot of steam.

 

          I know the government has some newfound interest in the information highway, but really that was what we were trying to do in 1985‑86 when we established the Info‑Tech Centre, and in fact established the first educational information network.

 

          MINET was established I believe in 1986 or '87, and really was a forerunner of the information networks that we are now hearing so much about.  They were not developed to their potential in my estimation, and it is something that we are probably going to regret, as a province, and I wish the government had proceeded with.

 

          I will leave that for a time; we have got some sections where we can talk about that.

 

          I want to put the minister on notice that there are a number of pieces of information that we will be requesting as we go through with.  One specifically, I have already provided the minister notice on this, I would like some information on a contract that was given by the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism to a one S.L. Bond.

 

          Both the previous ministers, who were sitting here earlier, both the member for Kirkfield Park (Mr. Stefanson) and the member for Charleswood (Mr. Ernst) had promised, in fact, to provide me with terms of reference for this contract.  I believe it was let in 1989 or '90, and I know the department spent something like $300,000.  I know from other sources that it was money not well spent.

 

          I would like to know whether there have been any further contracts.  I would like to have the government table a copy of the contract, and a copy of the terms of reference.  Again, this is the third request, and it does not seem to me that this is something that should be highly confidential; it is a contract paid for with public money.  It has been promised in the past and I would like this minister to deliver.

 

          The second piece of information that I am going to be requesting is information on the spending of the Economic Innovation and Technology Council.  I would like a report on the grants that have been provided, the research grants which I gather followed from the Manitoba Research Council initiatives, some of which were underway, or many of which were already underway.  I would like to know where the money is going that used to flow through the Manitoba Research Council, and I would specifically like to know what grants have been made from the economic innovation fund.  I think that is the title.  Yes, the Economic Innovation and Technology Fund.

 

* (1610)

 

          I would like some specific information about the undertaking to create "innovation" videos.  I understand that almost half of the money that was expended from this fund in the last budget was for a video, or a series of videos, and I would like some information on it.  I would also like some information on the government's intentions with respect to airing these videos, what sort of promotional use they will be put to and whether we can expect to see them on the public airwaves anytime soon.

 

          I think that is enough for opening remarks.  I will let my colleague from St. James put some remarks on the record.

 

The Acting Deputy Chairperson (Mr. Rose):  I thank the member for Flin Flon for those remarks.  Does the critic for the Second Opposition Party, the honourable member for St. James‑‑

 

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition):  Yes, I want to start by indicating that I missed the opening comments, although I understand there was some discussion about sitting in these Estimates tonight.  I am unavailable; however, having discussed this with my colleague the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry), he is prepared to sit tonight on my behalf.

 

          I understand that the minister feels he has to go to some meeting, and we are prepared to accommodate that.

 

Mr. Storie:  Go crazy.

 

Mr. Edwards:  I will not accept the invitation of my friend the member for Flin Flon to go crazy, but I will put some comments on the record at this point on the understanding that, not being able to participate tonight and in the event that these Estimates close tonight, I may not have a chance to ask some of the questions I might have asked as the critic.  But I assume and know from past experience that the minister will, hopefully, accommodate specific questions in the normal course of business of the House as he has done in the past.

 

          Specifically, I want to say, by way of opening comment, that the approach to Industry, Trade and Tourism, which is really the foremost department saddled with the responsibility of doing whatever government can do to promote economic growth, I view as a critical department.  The numbers, the actual budget perhaps suggests that it is, on the expenditure side, not one of the largest; however, I think in terms of importance and getting the philosophy and strategy right there are very few, if any, departments of more importance.  The department is really given the task of doing whatever government can do to help assist and promote economic growth.

 

          I start with the assumption that there are expenditure problems in government.  We have to deal with those, but ultimately if we are going to pay for these services, we are going to need economic growth to occur at a reasonable rate.  I think we are all aiming for a rate that is in a sustainable basis which will provide revenue for these services which I predict all parties today and certainly in the next election will stand up and say that we all like.

 

          We all want to pay for high‑quality health care, we all want to pay for high‑quality education, and we want the dollars to do that.  We have discrepancies over how much should be spent where and some priorities, but the bottom line is that we need growth to occur, all of us need growth to occur, to pay for those things.

 

          Having said that, I do have some concerns about the direction of the government.  I view the government as being overly concerned about attracting outside investors and being prepared to commit taxpayers' dollars to get those investors to come to Manitoba.

 

          No one would be happier to sign a profitable deal on behalf of this province with outside investors than I or representatives of the Liberal Party, but as a mainstay of economic growth, I think that the first and foremost priority must be our own businesses that are here and our own entrepreneurs who are here because clearly those people have a proven commitment to this community.

 

          Time has shown and our record has shown that those are the best investment.  The people who are here because they have already got a proven commitment are much more likely to stay.  We have learned time and time again that outside investors come, take and leave.  I believe that our first priority should be our domestic, our local people.

 

          I had an interesting anecdote I just wanted to leave with members based on‑‑which sort of gives me the encouragement that the right track is to promote people who are here.  I was in Altona, meeting with Mr. Friesen, who, I know, is known to many members of the government, and I asked him the question as to how this business got going.  I think his grandfather started in Altona.  His comment was very interesting.  His grandfather had started it because he thought it could be a viable business, although one could, I think, look at a map and say, well, perhaps for transportation reasons and other things, it should be somewhere else.  It got started there because that is where Mr. Friesen lived, and he wanted to do something to create employment for youth in Altona and in that region.

 

          I think the lesson there is‑‑and, of course, it has become a very, very successful firm with worldwide clients‑‑that we have the people here who are going to hold the key to our future.  They are already here, and I think our challenge is to ensure that those people are given a chance to invest, start profitable businesses and grow.

 

          Boeing is in Seattle because that is where Mr. Boeing lived.  Most often, I think, successful business does not come from people in the Legislature or other institutions or think tanks saying this industry is going to take off and this business is going to take off.  That is certainly worthwhile, but most often you find successful businesses grow and stay and provide jobs because there is a driving force, a driving person or group of people and this is where they live.  This is, as a result, where they make their commitment and where they stay.

 

          With respect to going on from that overview, and really, I think, which represents a significant philosophical difference with this government, which I see as overly interested in giving taxpayers' dollars to outside investors, I am going to be very interested in getting full details of the grants given in particular under the grants program, specifically to businesses, which falls under, I believe, Industry Development and subappropriation 10.2.(b), that is, Financial Services.

 

          I would like full details of grants given under the Business Immigration Program and what is happening with that.  I would like a full breakdown of the 42 projects listed under the Manitoba Industrial Opportunities Program and the jobs that are listed there and how those jobs are broken down.  I would also like details about the projects in the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative and the jobs that are listed there.  Those are things that I would like a greater breakdown on.

 

          In addition, the Manitoba Business Development Fund gives grant and loan support and I would like a breakdown of the companies that got support and in what amounts, and, as well, an update on the Energy Intensive Industries initiative, which is based out in Selkirk, I believe.  The project, I think, is going to wind up this year.  I just would be interested to get an update on that and what we have actually achieved from that investment.

 

          So, in particular, focus on subappropriation 10.2.(b), and in the event that I am not here when those questions are asked, I would like specifics of the programs that are listed in general terms under those headings and the monies that have gone‑‑and a breakdown of where the jobs that are alleged to have been created have been created.

 

          (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

 

          Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am going to conclude my opening comments with that.  Again, that does not represent all of the issues and concerns that I had intended to raise had I been present for all of this, but I will certainly review whatever issues my friend the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) and the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) raise tonight.  I trust that whatever flows from that is left unanswered and flows from these documents will, as it has in the past, be answered fully by the minister.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  I thank the honourable member for those statements.

 

* (1620)

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do not have any problems with the questions asked by the Leader of the Liberal Party that, if we are not able to provide the information this evening, I am prepared to provide it to him in an appropriate way either in writing or verbally to him, but I will get the information.  If he has additional questions as it relates to the department that he has not put on the record, I am prepared to respond positively to that.

 

          For the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie), I can do what I can to try and raise the contract that he has referred to.  I will reread the commitments made by my colleagues, but I take him at his word that there was a commitment made, and I will attempt to provide him with the information.  I am not knowledgeable of it, but I will in fact check into it.  The same goes for the member for Flin Flon.  If in tonight's discussion there are questions we cannot deal with or he does not get, I am quite open, because I think it is important that we do provide the information to the members of the Legislature on aspects of the expenditures of all departments.  So I would proceed to find out what I can for him and, if not tonight, then be very open to provide that information for him at another time.

 

          I again thank the members for their opening comments and am prepared to have staff come forward, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if that is your wish.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  I would like to thank the minister for that.  Under Manitoba practice, debate of the Minister's Salary is traditionally the last item considered for the Estimates of the department.  Accordingly, we shall defer consideration of this item and now proceed with consideration of the next line, and at this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table.  We ask the minister to introduce the staff present.

 

          We will be dealing with 1.(b)(1) on page 102.

 

Mr. Downey:  We have Mr. Stephen Kupfer, who is the acting deputy minister, who is filling in the position of deputy minister for the position that Paul Goyan had, who has gone over to deputy minister in Education for the area of training and universities.  We have Mr. Jack Dalgliesh, who is responsible for the finance and administration of the department, and Val Zinger, who was formerly there, who is knowledgeable and was very much involved in the development of the Estimates and has now gone over to the acting partner in the Environmental Industries section within the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism.

 

          So we have all the people with all the answers, and I will just sit here and pass the information over to my colleagues.

 

Mr. Storie:  Given the co‑operative mood we all seem to be in, I would recommend that perhaps we not follow so rigidly the Estimates process as preferred perhaps by this Chair.  My colleague from St. James who is not going to be here this evening could perhaps ask some more broad‑ranging questions, and we could float a little bit, if that is the will of committee.

 

Mr. Downey:  I agree with that, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.  I will try to accommodate to maximize the time that is available to us.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  Then, by leave, the committee can refer to whatever they want tonight.  How is that?

 

Mr. Downey:  Then it is our intention to pass it all at once.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Chair, I want to thank my colleagues on the committee for accommodating me.

 

          I want to refer to specifically subappropriation 10.2(b) under Financial Services of the Industry Development area.  This is the primary source of financial incentive to businesses to expand or locate in Manitoba.

 

          Mr. Deputy Chair, looking at the Expected Results, it indicates that there are 42 projects that were approved that would result in the creation or retention of approximately 6,312 jobs.  Is there a breakdown available of those 42 projects and those jobs, and does that represent one year's, that is the 1993‑94, efforts in that department?

 

Mr. Downey:  The numbers which are in the Supplementary Information, those are the projects that have been there for the life of the program, nine years I believe it is.  So it is not just one year's projects, it is the life of the program.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Mr. Deputy Chair, given that, can the minister indicate which projects have been initiated in this coming year under that program?

 

Mr. Downey:  In the last year?

 

Mr. Edwards:  Yes.

 

Mr. Downey:  There are six that have been completed and signed this past year‑‑not initiated maybe, but completed and signed.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Can the minister give a thumbnail sketch of those six?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes I can, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.  We are dealing with Carte International, Palliser Furniture, Builders Furniture, Readyfoods, which I put on the record in my opening statement, Apotex Fermentation and Standard Knitting.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Can the minister indicate in those six what the dollar amount was and what the form of the loan agreement was, whether it was grants, loans, forgivable loans, et cetera?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, basically the total amount of all of those combined was $3.2 million.  They were all repayable loans with interest forgiven if job targets are met, except for one, and it was a loan guarantee.  The numbers of jobs that are to be created, I am told, are 586 out of those loans.

 

Mr. Edwards:  I recognize the names of those companies.  Apotex obviously is not a Manitoba company.  How many of those companies are Manitoba companies, and how many are corporations from outside of the province?  Is that breakdown available?

 

Mr. Downey:  I think basically if they were not Manitoba companies, they are now.  You referred to Apotex, but I think all the other ones are traditionally Manitoba companies but, again, what is your definition of a Manitoba company?

 

* (1630)

 

Mr. Edwards:  The definition I am thinking of is simply a company that has not been here in the past and is attracted as opposed to a company that is here and is being assisted to expand.

 

          Is that distinction available?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that these are all existing companies that are expanding.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Under the Manitoba Industrial Recruitment Initiative, which is the next one listed there, it says it is a program that has only been in existence for two years.

 

          What is the distinction between the Recruitment Initiative criteria and the Opportunities Program criteria?  What is the difference in focus of these two programs?

 

Mr. Downey:  The difference, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is that MIOP is more the traditional bricks and mortar, equipment type loan.  The Industrial Recruitment Initiative is more for the call centre initiatives and the high‑tech area.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Given that, can the minister give us the same detail on the three projects that are listed under that initiative?

 

Mr. Downey:  They are basically loan programs.  The Winnipeg Airport Authority, the UMA Engineering which has already been repaid because it did not meet the targets in jobs that it was to create, and the GWE will be a forgivable loan if job targets are, in fact, met.

 

          (Mr. Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)

 

Mr. Edwards:  What was the Winnipeg airport agreement, how much, and what was it for?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, it was a three‑way funding from the City of Winnipeg, the federal government, WD, and the Province of Manitoba, $300,000 each to take it over and make it a local operating authority from a federal Transport Canada controlled authority.

 

Mr. Edwards:  That is bridge funding to allow for that transition, or is there going to be any capital purchases flowing from that?  What is the idea behind that $900,000?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, that is basically the set‑up costs of the authority, legal, contracts had to be put together, basically the developmental part of it, and once it becomes operational, it is repayable.

 

Mr. Edwards:  What then is the total for those three?  We have the $300,000 for the airport.  I know there is a $600,000 for GWE.  Is that the extent of it, and maybe the minister can just indicate what UMA had got and repaid.

 

Mr. Downey:  The amounts are $300,000 for Winnipeg Airport Authority; $300,000 for UMA, which has been repaid; and GWE is $484,000, which brings a total of $1,084,000.  The difference I think the number the member has is that there is a training component that goes with GWE to assist the training at ACC at Brandon.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Actually, I think that there is the training component in addition to a $600,000 contribution to the capital cost‑‑at least that is what the press release initially said.  The total contribution to GWE is I think a $1.4‑million facility, $484,000.  Was there any money from other levels of government, because I believe‑‑and I do not have it in front of me, but that there was a total of $600,000 contributed?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I would have to double check.  As far as the Department of I, T and T is concerned, the number which comes under the MIRI program is $484,000.  I can check as to whether or not there is any other department of government.  I know there is a training component which is over and above this.  As far as additional government money, I cannot speak to that, but I do know this is all that the MIRI program has put into it.

 

Mr. Edwards:  In the agreement with GWE, the minister indicates that there was a forgivable portion if job targets are met.  Are those job targets available?  Is the time frame and the numbers available for public view?

 

Mr. Downey:  That detail I can get for the member.  We have a 115 job target here.  I will get the details as to the additional information that he is asking for if there are additional commitments that have to be made.

 

Mr. Edwards:  That would be appreciated.  With respect to the Winnipeg authority, presumably there are no ties to jobs under that, that is simply that transitional funding.  Is that correct?

 

Mr. Downey:  That is correct.

 

Mr. Edwards:  So we are not expecting the province, the other levels are not expecting additional jobs.  It is just a joint decision to support this initiative.

 

Mr. Downey:  Basically, it is bridge financing and there is not a job component tied to that.

 

Mr. Edwards:  With respect to the two programs, the Industrial Opportunities Program and the Industrial Recruitment Initiative, is there a list‑‑and we are not going to go over it here, obviously, but is there an overall list which lists the 42 projects, not just the six this last year, but is there an overall master list that could be made available?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes.

 

Mr. Edwards:  I appreciate that and presumably that 42 goes back nine years, the length of the program.

 

Mr. Downey:  That is correct.

 

Mr. Edwards:  With respect to these two programs and I see there are others, but I am particularly interested in these.  How are these promoted?  How are these dealt with?  Is it based on interest being expressed by companies coming to the government or the government answering them and telling about these programs?  Are there educational initiatives, promotional initiatives, for these programs both inside and outside of Manitoba?  If so, what are they?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, basically, we have a number of staff within the department that work within the different business initiative areas that are meeting with, making contact with and are being contacted by people interested in doing business in Manitoba and/or businesses in Manitoba planning to expand, any combination of ways.  We do usually receive calls, people who are talking or thinking or needing support to expand their business.  They will make a contact to some department of government, if not I, T and, T, maybe Rural Development or vice‑versa.  But, basically, it is through the staff that work within the department.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Is the strategy to respond to inquiries or are there specific targeted initiatives that members of the department actually initiate themselves in terms of local companies or outside companies based on certain strategic areas that the government feels expansion can occur in?  In other words, is there a proactive as well as a reactive aspect to these programs?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Is the information available as to which specific companies have been approached by department officials as part of that strategy?

 

Mr. Downey:  I missed the first part of it, I am sorry.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Assuming there is a proactive approach and that the department would presumably have a record of approaches that were made to companies, is that information available for the last year as to which companies were approached by the department to consider expansion, consider participation in these programs?

 

Mr. Downey:  I do not know whether we would have a specific list, but I would think that we could get some additional companies that were approached and some that did approach us.  For sure we have not been able to land or be successful in all cases.  In discussion with the deputy minister and with different staff, they are always aggressively working.

 

* (1640)

 

          We have the six strategic areas which we have been working on.  We have several managing partners who are aggressively out there looking for opportunities.  I would not guarantee the member I could get a list of all the people that we have contacted or have contacted us, but I could give him some ideas of the numbers that we are talking of if that would be helpful to him.

 

          (Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

 

Mr. Edwards:  I realize there are the six strategic areas, and I am not looking for a log of every phone call that was made either in or out to the department to businesses under these programs.  What I am looking for are the companies within those six areas that were specifically targeted by the department to determine if they‑‑there is obviously this proactive aspect, and that is the aspect that I am specifically questioning on here as opposed to those who approached us‑‑but the companies that the department targeted and attempted to interest either in coming to Manitoba or expanding in Manitoba under these programs.

 

          Again, I am not looking for every phone call that was made, but presumably under those six strategy areas there are specific companies that were set out as reasonably with having a prospect of success.  Whether or not they were ultimately successful or not, obviously, we can tell by comparing it to the ones that deals are now in place.  There may be others that people are working on now and will be in place in the next year.

 

          What I am looking for is the companies that the department under those six initiatives specifically targeted and went out to attempt to interest, and if possible, an outline of whether or not there are still some negotiations underway or it was unsuccessful or successful.

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would try and be as helpful as I can, although I think there may be some negotiations and discussions that are still ongoing.  Talking publicly about them may not be in the best interests of the plans of the company that may want their strategy not made public, so I do not want to overextend my generosity in this area.

 

          If there is a reporting system which I feel is able to be provided for the member, if not publicly, in a confidential way I might be able to do that.  I do not want to put in jeopardy some of the work that is being carried out.  Even though the proposal or the company may not have gone ahead, say, six months ago, conditions may change that may have them come back.  I am a little cautious on that, but I will try and be as helpful as I can, if the member will accept that.  If he is not, he can push me again for additional commitments.  I will try and be as helpful as I can on giving him information that we feel is not damaging to potential businesses.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Obviously, it is not the intent of this to damage any negotiations that are ongoing.  I think the other side of this is I am not asking for details of whatever negotiations are going.  I would like to know other than possibly the name of the company and the current status, i.e., we are still in negotiations, negotiations have broken off, or obviously there is a deal in place.  I accept the minister's statement that he will use his best efforts to see if that information is available and can be provided.

 

          With respect to the Industrial Recruitment Initiative, it is indicated there are three projects involving about 250 jobs.  With the 250 jobs and three projects, I see here GWE is 115, Winnipeg Airport is none, UMA is repaid.  Where are the other 135 jobs?

 

Mr. Downey:  I did not follow the member.

 

          We talk about 115 with GWE.  UMA did not meet their target, or did not accomplish the goal that was established, and that was 200.  So that is 315.  The Winnipeg Airport Authority had no job commitments.

 

Mr. Edwards:  What I am reading from is the wording right above where it indicates:  "The program has been in effect for 2 years and has resulted in 3 projects involving about 250 jobs."  Are those three projects spoken of there the three we have just talked about, airport, UMA and GWE, because if so, UMA may well have been 200 jobs, but that has not panned out, so those I assume do not count in that 250.  Winnipeg airport has none, we have talked about that.  GWE has 115.  Should the figure currently based on the UMA record be 115 jobs in that statement?

 

Mr. Downey:  You will not get a debate from me on that.  That is probably the case.

 

Mr. Edwards:  With respect to the program having been in effect for two years, that is the extent of the activity in those two years.  The statement that is three projects, that is the two‑year record, or are there other projects from the prior year?

 

Mr. Downey:  These represent the ones that have been signed by the government, not including any that are being worked on now and/or from prior years, I am told.

 

Mr. Edwards:  But the three does represent a cumulative number for the two‑year period.

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes, that is correct.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Thank you.

 

          With respect to the Surface Transportation Technology and indications there about the bus industry, what is happening under that particular heading?  I recall back in, I think, June or July of last year sitting in a committee talking about New Flyer and writing off what we wrote off, and it was an enormous amount of money.  I do not know what it was‑‑$107 million to $114 million essentially.  Is this the tail end of that initiative, or what is this about?

 

Mr. Downey:  No, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this does not have anything to do with New Flyer.  This is dealing with Motor Coach Industries.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Motor Coach Industries is the sum total of this particular program's effort at this point.

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes.

 

Mr. Edwards:  When it indicates here that they are working on a newly designed, newly engineered intercity bus and the creation of over 40 high‑level engineering jobs, how much money has been committed to MCI in this program, and what is the timetable on that?  Is MCI close to fruition here?  What is happening with that project?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because there is a series of numbers here, projections and‑‑would the member just give me a little bit more of an idea of the specifics of the question, so I can‑‑

 

Mr. Edwards:  I would like to know what monies have been committed thus far under this initiative by the department and on what terms.  Maybe we can start with that.

 

* (1650)

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that $5 million has been committed, and that is out of a total package, I believe, if I am reading this correctly, of just over $21 million of which the province and Western Diversification are also involved.  Our commitment is a $5‑million package of which we have not flown that amount of money because the request has not been there for that amount of money at this point.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Can the minister tell us how much of the $5 million has been committed and, in fact, gone at this point?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes, I am told that just over $1.3 million has been actually spent by the province.

 

Mr. Edwards:  With respect to the $21 million, is our contribution to that capped at $5 million and the other $16 million comes from Western Diversification?

 

Mr. Downey:  No.  Motor Coach Industries has a commitment of $11 million,  Western Diversification just over $5 million, and us at $5 million.

 

Mr. Edwards:  What is the time line on that?  Is there current information as to when this project might come to fruition?  I am not quite clear on what they are actually doing, except designing a new bus.  Is that going to come to fruition at some point?  When are we going to pay out the rest of the $5 million?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am told that the commitment is there to have the project completed within the two years, so I would expect that would require the provincial commitment to flow in that period of time.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Now the two years, when was the signing date?  When did the agreement start?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, 1991‑92, so it is to be completed within two years from now.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Okay.  So it is to be completed two years from now, that is, it was originally a four‑year agreement, or was it originally a two‑year agreement, in which case we would be finished by now?

 

Mr. Downey:  Originally, a five‑year agreement.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Now I see on the line that there was actually‑‑is it $500,000 that was contributed this year out of the $1.3 million that has been committed so far?

 

Mr. Downey:  Mr. Deputy Chairperson, $500,000 is next year's commitment.

 

Mr. Edwards:  What was actually committed this year?

 

Mr. Downey:  For the year 1994‑95, it would be $500,000, and for 1993‑94, it was just under $195,000.

 

Mr. Edwards:  That is for creation of over 40 high‑level engineering jobs.  Is that the 40 jobs in the design stage over that five‑year period that are to be created?

 

Mr. Downey:  Part of it is a bigger employment picture than that.  I think they have something like 1,400 employees in total, and this adds to the R & D component, of which the 40 engineering jobs are to be added to that, I believe.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Is that money, the potential for $5 million, a loan, forgivable loan, grant?  What are the terms of that money?

 

Mr. Downey:  It is an R & D grant.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Meaning obviously that it is nonrepayable?

 

Mr. Downey:  Correct.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Is the grant similarly tied to employment numbers?  Is it tied in any way to future employment beyond the 40 jobs in the design stage?

 

Mr. Downey:  Yes, it is tied to employment being maintained in the province.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Does that mean that it is tied to existing employment being maintained, or are there new employment targets which are built in to the repayment agreement?

 

Mr. Downey:  I am told, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that they have to maintain their existing job level.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Now presumably that would be taking the job level as of the time the agreement was signed back in 1991‑92.  Can the minister indicate what that job level was?

 

Mr. Downey:  It is my understanding‑‑and if it is not correct, I will correct it‑‑it is 1,400.

 

Mr. Edwards:  Are there currently 1,400 people still working at Motor Coach Industries, or at least are there currently the same employment complement as there was in 1991‑92, or have they gone down or up?  Does the minister know?

 

Mr. Downey:  It is my understanding, I am told‑‑and again, this is subject to further correction, if there is a change, but I think these are accurate‑‑this was based on 1,400 when it was started, and they now have something in Winnipeg of 1,400 to 1,500 jobs.

 

Mr. Edwards:  With respect to the Business Immigration Program also listed under this heading, obviously that program had its difficulties in this province, resulting in the May 1993 withdrawal after the December 1992 moratorium.  Where is the province at in terms of that program?  Are there any discussions to reinstigate it under a different monitoring system, or is the province out of its sum total for the foreseeable future?

 

Mr. Downey:  Our current position, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, is to not move forward at this particular time.  We have asked the federal government to maintain the position which we have put forward, and that was, one particular project, a freeze on the funds.  There has not been a decision to change and advance in any other area of the Immigrant Investor Program.

 

Mr. Edwards:  To the minister's knowledge, have any other provinces placed moratoriums on this in a similar fashion?

 

Mr. Downey:  I am told that there is not any moratorium placed on by any other province.

 

Mr. Edwards:  I do not want to go on too much further.  Can the minister indicate why ours went awry and others did not?  Was there something differently done in Manitoba?  I do not have that report in front of me, but what happened here that did not happen in the rest of the country, or is the rest of the country just not as concerned about some of the problems?

 

Mr. Downey:  I do not know whether one could assume that there are not problems in other provinces.  It is not for me to speak to other provinces.  That is why we are taking the position that we are‑‑is not to change our position because we believe it is the correct one.  It is not a matter of trying to get this behind us so that we come in line with other provinces.  If there are problems in other provinces, we believe they should be dealt with the same way as we want to deal with them.

 

          I think the country should in fact deal with it openly and honestly because it has not left the best impression of investing in Canada, and it is unfortunate.

 

          We think, if we can get back on track in Manitoba, that some day the policy could be revisited, but we want to do so on a sound footing.

 

Mr. Deputy Chairperson:  The hour being five o'clock, time for private members' hour, committee rise.

 

 

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.  We are on Item 1.(b)(1), page 81.

 

          Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

 

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan):  Madam Chairperson, yesterday when we left off we had discussed briefly the situation of the CT scanners, and I asked the minister a question concerning Seven Oaks.  I am wondering if the minister can give me any idea, does he have any idea when a decision will be rendered with respect to the CT scanner at Seven Oaks?

 

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health):  We are looking at a proposal put forward by Seven Oaks, we meaning the Imaging Committee, and I am not able to say when the Imaging Committee will make known its views when it addresses the Seven Oaks proposal.  At that point, it will make its recommendations and then we will move accordingly.  At this point I am unable to tell the honourable member when.

 

Mr. Chomiak:  Madam Chairperson, earlier on during the Question Period in the House I indicated to the minister that the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) was going to ask some general questions.  We are waiting now for the staff that can deal with those questions, and I appreciate the fact that the minister lined up the specific staff to deal with the questions that will be posed by the member for The Pas.

 

          In the interim period I am going to advise the minister‑‑the minister is very fond, has spent a lot of time in this committee talking about the Province of Ontario.  I generally do not spend a good deal of time dealing with other provinces, but I do have a document here dealing with utilization of nurse practitioners in Ontario, which is a summary of a paper produced by the McMaster University School of Nursing.  I thought, if the minister would like, I will forward a copy of that document to him for review by the committee and by his nursing adviser concerning the issue of the nurse practitioners and their future in Manitoba, because I think there are some excellent recommendations in this paper.  I will be forwarding that to the minister for review.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, we too are interested in what is happening in Ontario.  When they are positive things, we are interested in those positive kinds of things as well as, for comparison purposes, some of the others.  I refer to the others only when hypocrisy causes people to raise questions about health matters here, so I am very happy to look at things that are going on in Ontario.  In some areas, Ontario leads the pack, it is true.

 

          In fact, in the area of midwifery, which I just had occasion to make some comments and announcements about today, Ontario is out ahead of the other provinces.  So I think it is important that I be fair too and recognize that some very progressive things come out of Ontario and that has been the history of Ontario.  Ontario has played an important role.

 

          With respect to nurse practitioners and nurse‑managed care issues, the department, in consultation with other providers and consumers, is maintaining an ongoing dialogue with respect to the role of nursing.  As a matter of fact, it was just last week, because of all of the charges and countercharges and things that do go on amongst professionals, I convened a meeting.  I felt that one of the best ways to help resolve some of the outstanding nursing roles and education issues might be to call several groups together and discuss it.

 

          I invited Dr. John Arnett, a psychologist, to assist in leading or moderating the meeting.  We invited representatives of the Manitoba Association of Registered Nurses, the Manitoba Association of Licensed Practical Nurses, the Registered Psychiatric Nurses Association of Manitoba, representatives of nursing aides, and our government's new Nursing Adviser, Carolyn Park, who is in the vicinity and may join us at some point.

 

          That meeting was a day‑long meeting, and it was designed to discuss roles and those things.  I invited the Manitoba Nurses' Union, and we did that in a collaborative way to set the date so that it worked for everybody.  On the day before the meeting, I got a message that the Manitoba Nurses' Union was not going to attend.

 

          I got on the telephone and spoke to Vera Chernecki to urge her to ensure that if she could not be at the meeting that she would at least send a representative.  However, that was not to be.  Unfortunately, the Manitoba Nurses' Union set its priorities in such a way that it did not attend the meeting.  I found that regrettable, but I did not find that enough of a reason not to allow the meeting to go forward.  The meeting did go forward.  I think that as nursing professionals, addressed together, rather than apart, their roles in the continuum of care in this province and nursing education needs will have a better chance of success.  That is why we regret the MNU did not go to the meeting.  I think it was important.  In any event, that is water under the bridge; it did not happen.

 

          We had the other partners in health attending.  They are going to have more meetings.  They are going to, I hope, report to me by June 15 with what kind of progress they have made in these discussions.  As part of all this, the issue of nurse practitioners, the issue of nurse‑managed care and the role of nursing as a group, we will be able to address those issues, I think, better if we can come to an understanding amongst ourselves about who should be doing what and so forth.

 

          So once some of these meetings have been completed, I am very hopeful for a positive result so that we can move forward in a positive, collaborative and co‑operative way in the future and not be engaging in disputes over one thing and another in the delivery of health services in Manitoba.

 

* (1510)

 

Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The Pas):  Madam Chairperson, I would like to thank the Chair for allowing me a little bit of time to ask the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae) some questions as well.

 

          I wanted to start off by getting into federal‑provincial agreements.  I know that there are all kinds of federal‑provincial financial arrangements that are made from time to time.  Some arrangements are still in existence.  Some arrangements have expired.  Areas, for example, where there have been federal‑provincial financial arrangements would be in the areas of policing, justice, natural resources, social services and health.

 

          Now I wanted to maybe ask the minister a couple of questions on Health as it pertains to aboriginal people from the area that I come from.  I know that there is a federal‑provincial health agreement that has been in existence since 1964, Madam Chair.  One of my questions for the minister this afternoon is, what amount of money, federal money that is, does the provincial government, namely the Department of Health, get from the federal government, namely the Department of National Health and Welfare?  How much of that money is incorporated into the provincial Health department to provide services for nontreaty Indians and treaty Indians in Moose Lake, Grand Rapids, Easterville and Shoal River?  Perhaps at the same time, Madam Chair, I would ask the minister if he could provide me with funds that are allocated for each of those communities.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I apologize to the honourable member for the delay.  I had to be brought up to date by staff of the department as to the situation, and I have met with, for example, Swampy Cree people on the issue.  The issue is one of long standing, it is true, and the issue I think resolves itself into a consideration of the following:  the bands I believe want to have provincial funds focused or transferred to the bands.

 

          The position that we have been taking is that we want to see band governments reach understandings with neighbouring communities so that if funds should be transferred that all of the people in a particular region would then be appropriately looked after under such an arrangement.  So we await resolution of some of those issues before we engage in amendments to those agreements like that.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  Thank you.  Madam Chair, I am not sure if I understand the minister's response.  It is my understanding‑‑and I think I have a good understanding of the negotiations that have been going on between the Swampy Cree Tribal Council and the Department of Health.

 

          Originally the idea came from negotiations that had gone on between Swampy Cree and the federal government.  The federal government has a health transfer policy which I am sure the minister is aware of.  Not all that long ago, the federal Minister of Health was in Winnipeg and made a public statement as to the federal government's intention on implementing the health transfer policy.

 

          Now, from what I understand of the issue, Madam Chair, the federal Health department is ready to do business with the Swampy Cree Tribal Council, but I think where the problem arises is at the provincial level in that the Department of Health, through the minister, is insisting that there be agreement between Swampy Cree, which represents treaty aboriginal people, for Swampy Cree to get an agreement with the neighbouring communities, as he puts it, usually Metis people who live adjacent to each other in some of the communities.

 

          I believe Swampy Cree Tribal Council is ready to move ahead with the health transfer process.  Negotiations and meetings have gone on for quite a long time.  I was copied a letter that was written to the Minister of Health (Mr. McCrae), oh, a month, two months ago maybe, where the tribal council was expressing a high level of frustration that they are experiencing in their negotiations with the Department of Health.

 

          What I was interested in knowing from the minister though is, the monies that are federally appropriated, given to the provincial government, how much is it?  How much of that money is being used in Moose Lake, Grand Rapids, Easterville and Shoal River as a result of that joint agreement?

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, I regret if anybody feels any frustrations.  I think that part of the problem here has to do with, as I said, communities in the vicinity.  I mean, we are talking in Manitoba about regionalized health care service delivery, people working together.  That remains part of the discussion or the debate or perhaps the frustration too, but also part of it is I think that if there were to be a transfer directly from the province to the band that there might not be a total understanding here about the levels of services that we are talking about transferring money for.

 

          You see, we can only transfer funds to the level of service delivery that we as a government here in Manitoba provide services.  If bands want to enhance that service, that then is not something we are prepared to sweeten the pot up, if that is the right expression, to cover.  If we are going to enter into that kind of arrangement, it would be at the levels of funding that we make available now.  Only if and when government policy in Manitoba were to change and more services were to be part of our total system would we want to increase the funding accordingly.  I think I have got that stated correctly.  So those are some issues that remain outstanding.

 

* (1520)

 

          I think that maybe we could reduce the frustration if both sides understood that is the basis from which the provincial government is operating.  We do not want to have a situation where some regions of Manitoba have a wider variety of services or higher level of services, or lower for that matter, than the rest of the province.  So that remains a problem for us, and if it creates frustration, I would ask that the parties get together and discuss those things.  It is just that we cannot, I do not think, enhance service under one funding arrangement and not do that everywhere else in the province, and that becomes the problem for the provincial government.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  Madam Chair, I regret that I do not have that letter with me here, because as I recall it, the thrust of that letter had to do with every time there is an agreement, or at least every time the Swampy Cree Tribal Council thinks they have reached a tentative agreement with the department, the department through the‑‑as Mr. Dorion puts it in his letter, the bureaucracy will change things around in between meetings.  That was the frustrating part that was contained in that letter that was written by Mr. Dorion, the executive director of the tribal council.

 

          My understanding is that the whole problem lies in the fact that the Department of Health is not prepared to finalize or conclude the negotiations.  The federal government is standing there waiting for the two sides to come to an agreement.

 

          Now, I am going to ask the minister again, if you are‑‑I will give examples here.  If your budget for Moose Lake, for example, is $100,000, that $100,000 is required to provide health services to Moose Lake.  I understand there are Metis people there and there are treaty Indians there.  My question is, how much of that $100,000 is federal money that is geared towards treaty Indian people.  The same thing would go for the other communities, like Grand Rapids, Easterville and Shoal River.  Is there any sort of breakdown that would give us that information?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I will ask my staff here to work on the second part of that question, and I will talk about the first part.

 

          The honourable member has stated that there is some frustration with the Health department bureaucracy, and on this occasion, I will say that I do not think that they have any complaint with the bureaucracy that they do not have with me.  I am quite prepared to say that, as I understand the department's handling of this, I do not have any quarrel with the department on this issue.

 

          There are some times, as I have said, that the bureaucracy gets in the way, in some programs, of the public seeing a user‑friendly sort of a system, but in this particular issue, I do not believe they should blame the bureaucracy.  If they are unhappy they could blame me if they want, because I have had discussions‑‑[interjection]

 

          Well, okay then.  Do not blame the bureaucracy, blame me.  The bureaucracy has had a rough ride the last couple of days, as a matter of fact, and so on this one they are into this with me.  I will just pause before I do this.

 

          To continue, Madam Chairperson, with respect to the hypothetical situation the member points out, the $100,000 example, we do not know what federal monies are being spent on reserves.  Let us take Moose Lake, for example.  We do not know what the federal people transfer there to be spent there.  We know how much provincial dollars are spent both on the reserve and off the reserve.  We know that amount, and as part of an agreement, if we get one arrived at, that is the amount we could transfer under the agreement.

 

          Other issues arise and that is, I believe, what the aboriginal negotiators refer to as gaps in the service, that somehow we are supposed to come in and plug those, fill those holes.  That in our submission is not something we need to be responsible for, and maybe it is the honourable member's frustration but it sure is mine, too, has been ever since I have been in politics, all the rules that we have to have, federal, provincial, whose responsibility.  I do not care for that system, but until Ron Irwin and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs get some things sorted out, I am afraid we are all stuck with that.

 

          The honourable member knows my frustration about that, but I do say also that myself and the Minister responsible for Native Affairs, the honourable member for Lac du Bonnet (Mr. Praznik), we did send a letter to the Swampy Cree on this topic, setting out some of our concerns and responses to some of theirs.  The ball in my view is in the court of Swampy Cree at this time.  We are awaiting their response right now.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  I am not going to dwell on that much longer, but I would like to say, as I leave that area, for example, one of the areas that is frustrating the tribal council is initially when negotiations started, the federal government was a part of the negotiating process, I guess.  Somewhere along the way, the Department of Health, provincially, advised the tribal council that the federal government was‑‑either the Department of Health, provincially, did not want the federal government to be part of their negotiating process anymore.  It was something to that effect as I recall from Mr. Dorion's letter.  That is one example.

 

          The other example is when meetings are held, the tribal council, as I stated earlier, has the understanding that there is an agreement or a tentative agreement, and by the time letters come out to the tribal council or when the next meeting is held, you know, certain positions change on the part of Health.  Mainly that is what frustrates the tribal council.

 

          The last time I talked with Mr. Dorion, I believe it was in February, end of January, their position was that if the provincial government is not willing to come to a conclusion of the negotiations or come to an agreement, that they were willing to go the route of health transfer without the participation of the provincial government.  That is why, I believe, they are now asking the provincial government, the Department of Health, as to what amount of federal money is involved in the 1964 agreement so they can get on with their health transfer process, because the minister was here in Winnipeg a couple of months ago and made that public statement.  So they want to go ahead; they do not want to get left behind.  As the minister stated, there is all kinds of activity going on right now with regard to Mr. Irwin's and the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs' negotiations on the dismantling of Indian Affairs.

 

* (1530)

 

          So I can understand the tribal council's position on that, but as I said, what they wanted to know was the amount of federal money that is given to the provincial government for the provision of health services to those 64 agreement communities.

 

          Madam Chair, I might add that recently I went back to reading the report that was prepared by George Bass who is the Chair for the Northern Air Medical Services task force when they presented their interim report to the steering committee of the Health Advisory Network in September of 1992.

 

          Their third recommendation had to do with, and I quote from the report:  Recommendation (3) It is recommended that the 1964 Memorandum of Agreement be rescinded and that there be established a new division of responsibility‑‑including in this case they were talking about a new means of patient transportation, co‑ordination among Manitoba, Canada and First Nations.

 

          Even the Northern Air Medical Services task force deemed it appropriate and recommended that the 1964 agreement be rescinded and work get on.

 

          Perhaps my last question on that issue, Madam Chair, is to ask the minister whether he could give me an indication as to when these negotiations might conclude.  I remember reading Mr. Dorions's letter again wherein he said they were asking for a meeting.  Has that meeting been held in response to Mr. Dorion's request for a meeting?  I understand from the letter that he was requesting a meeting with the minister.

 

          My suggestion to the minister, if he were asking for my suggestion, would be to advise him to meet with the tribal council chiefs and lay all the cards on the table, and maybe at the same time clear up any misunderstandings that may be there and also deal with the numerous frustrations that the chiefs are experiencing in their negotiations with the provincial government.  I do want to know, though, when I am advising him to meet with the chiefs of the Tribal Council.  Also, I would ask him to maybe give an indication as to when those negotiations might be concluded, because it is quite important for the Tribal Council in their endeavours to establish the infrastructure that is going to be required in the event that the health transfer takes place.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, I realize this is important to them, and I respect that.  I think that the members of the Swampy Cree Tribal Council are trying their best to deliver the best quality services to the people they represent as they possibly can.  So it is not a question of any lack of understanding of the importance on my part, because I agree with the honourable member.

 

          The cards are on the table.  I believe they are.  I think everybody understands what the issues are, and then it is a question of agreeing to a course of action that everybody feels is satisfactory and will be able to live with and sustain over the longer haul.

 

          Just a brief chronology‑‑I do not have the dates, but earlier this year, I met with the council.  I then asked my department to ensure that they followed up by meeting with representatives of the council as well.  Following that meeting amongst officials, we sent out a letter setting out our understanding, I take it our staff did or our officials, of the positions taken and so on and asking for a response from the Tribal Council.  We are at the point now where we are awaiting that response.  So we are working with them.  There are some principles that they have in mind and some that we have in mind, and that is the nature of these kinds of discussions and negotiations.

 

          There is always that other party, that federal government, as well.  I mean, the honourable member is asking me things like about what monies are coming in from the federal people.  I do not know that, and that is something that Mr. Irwin or the Tribal Council itself could tell the honourable member, I would think.  Was it Mr. Irwin or Madam Marleau, the Health minister?  One of those two can tell the honourable member those things better than I can, because they are federal monies.  I realize the report of the Arrow Medical Services is available.

 

          I just want to point out to the honourable member something that he said a while ago with respect to the 1964 agreement.  There is no reference to money in that agreement.  That agreement sets out issues like who is going to deliver what and to whom, that kind of an agreement, without reference to dollars or numbers of dollars.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  Still on that issue, Madam Chair, I would like to point out to the minister that the federal government usually does not get into an agreement with a provincial government unless things are spelled out very clearly, particularly when it comes to aboriginal people.  In fact I think I had to go to the federal government for this information, and that is Natural Resources, in the trapping area.  I was able to find out for myself that indeed there had been a five‑year agreement.  That agreement expired last year, and the provincial Natural Resources department annually received a little over $300,000 a year from the Department of Indian Affairs for a treaty Indian trappers program.  So I guess we will have to go to the federal government to get those numbers, seeing as how the minister is not able to break them down for us here today, Madam Chairperson.  So I will leave that as it is.

 

Mr. McCrae:  I hope the honourable member and I are understanding each other.  The money the federal government transfers is not transferred to the provincial government.  It is transferred to the band directly.  Swampy Cree Tribal Council or the bands can tell the honourable member, if they wish to do so, the amounts of monies that are transferred from the federal government.  The province is reimbursed by the federal government for services provided to Status people off reserve.

 

* (1540)

 

          Strike that last statement.  I was incorrect there, Madam Chairperson.  We do not bill the federal government for services provided in our off‑reserve facilities for services rendered, and I will get more detail around that for my own purposes.

 

          The services we deliver on reserve are basically of the nature of public health services, nursing‑type services in a public health way.  That is the kind of contribution we make on reserve, and so it would be discussions like that, discussions surrounding those services that would be the subject of any transfer that Manitoba would be contemplating under any change to the 1964 arrangement.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  Madam Chairperson, I know, for example, in the children's dental program, the minister says that there is no federal money coming into the department for the provision of health care services to those communities that are tied up in the '64 agreements, but the provincial government is also noted for not going into reserves and providing services for nothing.  I know that much because time and time again when I was chief I tried negotiating things with the provincial government, and each time I was shown the door to the federal government because that is where I belonged; I was a federal responsibility.

 

          So that is why I cannot understand why the minister would say that there is no federal money to finance that '64 agreement.  The provincial government is not noted for providing any kind of service to reserves for nothing.

 

          The recent example is the DOTC policing.  The provincial government does not have a track record of entering into federal‑provincial agreements and financing the agreement all by themselves.  Surely there are federal funds that come into the Department of Health for the provision of or for the financing of the 1964 agreement.

 

Mr. McCrae:  Madam Chairperson, I think the honourable member and I are getting into one of those classic discussions that we used to get into when we talked about the constitution and those arrangements.  I really, truly and sincerely wish the federal government and the Assembly of Chiefs in Manitoba well in their discussions for getting the federal government out of some of the management and the governance of aboriginal people in Manitoba, because something has to improve.

 

          I will just vent my own frustrations.  The honourable member no doubt has some.  I have some because we have all these different and special rules for different people in Manitoba.  All that it ever ends up doing is it leads to agreements that go back to 1964 that we have trouble changing, to discussions about so and so is not getting fair treatment and a neighbouring community is not going to get fair treatment if we deal with things in a certain way.

 

          My frustration is, I think the member knows, a lot like his own, depending on which side you are on.  It is just a real mess in my view and has been for probably over 125 years in Canada.

 

          I look forward to the day‑‑I do not know if it means throw out the Indian Act altogether, but it certainly means make some changes there.  Maybe Manitoba First Nations can help lead the way for all First Nations in Canada.  I wish them well because the issues the member is raising really sound so much like so many other discussions we have had with respect to jurisdiction and who is responsible for what.

 

          My concern as a Health minister, formerly as a Justice minister, no matter what portfolio I might be in, it is fairness for all Manitobans, the highest level of service for all Manitobans that we can get together and provide.  That is my bottom line.  I said that to the Swampy Cree representatives who came to see me.  I think they understand that.

 

          I also know the wish and desire of First Nations to want to take some control over their own affairs and their own services.  That somehow has to work into a scheme that treats all Manitobans relatively equitably when it comes to the delivery of health care.

 

          I just say that so the honourable member will understand where I am coming from, and I say too that we continue to await a response from the Swampy Cree Council so that we can move forward with these discussions.

 

Mr. Lathlin:  Madam Chairperson, if as the minister says there is no federal money financing the '64 agreement, why is he so reluctant then to rescind the agreement if it is not going to cost him anything and allow the tribal council to go on their own and make their arrangements with the federal government?

 

Mr. McCrae:  I hope I was clear.  I think I talked about it a little while ago.  The issue resolves itself to a consideration of the matter of the level of service being provided by Manitoba now.  As part of these discussions, Swampy Cree seems to be saying to us, there are gaps in the service and we need this and that enhanced, which really ends up calling for more provincial dollars than is presently being spent.  That to me creates this inequity that I mentioned a few minutes ago.

 

          If that was not on the table, I suspect we would be closer to arriving at an arrangement.  If there is frustration, it may be frustration at the provincial government not being prepared to provide services in one region that would be at a higher level than services provided in other regions.  That would be the position of Manitoba that might be causing the negotiators for Swampy Cree some frustration.  That, however, is not something I do not think I can negotiate, in other words, say that the First Nations will get a better or higher level of service than other parts of Manitoba.  I cannot agree to that, and if that is the source of their frustration, I am sorry, but that is not my problem.  That is something that the Swampy Cree people will have to come to grips with.  If they want to move forward‑‑we have not said we are not willing to move forward on this.  We are not saying that is not possible or is not on or that we do not agree.

 

          They are saying that there are gaps in service.  So that requires‑‑and I do not know if there are gaps in service or not, because there is still a federal presence and we are not aware to what extent the federal people are involved in financing services on reserves.  So the honourable member, as I say, I suggest in helping him get an understanding of this, if he needs or wants to know about the federal contribution, find out what that federal contribution is by asking Swampy Cree itself how many dollars come in to the reserves for health care.  Maybe they will share that with you.  I do not know if the federal government does that or not, but if that is an area of confusion, that can be settled by asking Swampy Cree how many federal dollars are coming in.

 

* (1550)

 

Mr. Lathlin:  The Swampy Cree Tribal Council and I know how much federal money goes into the tribal councils and into the individual First Nations health programs.  We know that because we have contribution agreements with the federal government.  What we are interested in knowing, and what the tribal council is interested in knowing, is that federal portion of whatever it is that is financing the 1964 agreement.

 

Mr. McCrae:  We as a province are not given an amount of money from the federal government in trust for those particular people.  That is my understanding.  We cannot break it down in the way that the honourable member seems to be suggesting we could.  We are all here together, and our EPF arrangements, our equalization arrangements‑‑equalization is basically a tax issue, and I have got the former Minister of Finance here, who is helping me too with this discussion.  The EPF is not measured in the way that the honourable member seems to be suggesting I should know how the EPF affects the people in, let us say, the Moose Lake Reserve area.  That is not how the pie is divvied up.  We receive transfers from Ottawa on the EPF, on the cap, on the equalizat