LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF
Thursday, June 2, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
PRESENTING PETITIONS
Mrs. Shirley Render (St.
Vital): Mr. Speaker, I beg to present the petition of
Douglas Taylor, William J. Fraser and Lily B. Stearns praying for the passage
of an act incorporating the Manitoba Historical Society so that the activities
of the Manitoba Historical Society may continue as they have since its legal
dissolution by virtue of the repeal of an act to incorporate the Historical
Society of Manitoba on November 14, 1990.
PRESENTING REPORTS BY
STANDING AND SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Committee of Supply
Mrs. Louise Dacquay
(Chairperson of Committees): Mr.
Speaker, the Committee of Supply has supported certain resolutions, directs me
to report the same and asks leave to sit again.
I move, seconded by the honourable member for La Verendrye
(Mr. Sveinson), that the report of the committee be received.
Motion agreed to.
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker,
I would like to table the Annual Report for The Surface Rights Board of
Manitoba, 1993‑94.
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table notes for
a presentation I made to the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign
Policy meeting yesterday in
* (1335)
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
Also this afternoon, we have from the
From the Calvin Christian School, we have thirty Grade 9
students under the direction of Mr. John Buikema. This school is located in the constituency of
the honourable Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Royal Canadian Legion
Headgear Policy
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, later today, by leave, all the
members of this Chamber have agreed to celebrate and commemorate the 50th
Anniversary of D‑Day, a resolution that is placed before this House by
the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) which will pay tribute to our
veterans and forces in the Second World War.
Unfortunately, this same time this week, we have some major
public controversy dealing with the whole issue of the Royal Canadian Legion's
decision to ban headgear in legion facilities, which obviously impacts on our
communities here in Manitoba.
I would like to ask the Premier, what position has the
provincial government on this issue in terms of either the human rights act of Manitoba
or the Human Rights Act of Canada?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, like all members of the Chamber,
I am sure, we find it regrettable that a private organization would set those
kinds of discriminatory rules. I
personally certainly disagree with the position they have taken.
Having said that, it is not a matter in which the province
has jurisdiction in a private organization, and we cannot force them, against
their will, to change the position they have taken.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, all of us have paid tribute to
the tremendous community work that legions perform in all of our constituencies
right across Manitoba. I think last year
I was mentioning the milk program for the Duke of Marlborough School in
Churchill as a tremendous‑‑one of many thousands of contributions
that have been made by those very same legions to our communities.
But, Mr. Speaker, we have a Manitoba Human Rights Code
dealing with religious tolerance and religious practices. I wonder if the Premier has any legal opinion
about this issue dealing with the whole issue of religious rights and religious
tolerance as it applies to the Manitoba human rights act.
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member knows that
this is an issue in which the legion itself is very divided. There are varying very strong opinions
amongst its members, many of whom do not agree with the position that has been
taken by the majority. There is no
question that it is an emotional and difficult issue.
We have not got a legal opinion on the issue, and that is
not a matter that I can comment on because I do not have a legal opinion.
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba has always been a
leader in religious tolerance. It has
also been a leader in volunteerism and community participation, and the
legions, of course, have exemplified that in our province.
Has the government looked at taking a leadership position
in Manitoba to deal with this challenge, to have religious organizations in
Manitoba meeting with the government and with the legions here in our province
to try to resolve this in a co‑operative way, consistent with our
principles of religious tolerance on the one hand and respect for the
tremendous work that our legions perform to our communities on the other hand?
* (1340)
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a decision that
had been taken by the national body of the legions in Canada, so it is not a
matter that is just a provincial issue.
I believe that legion members will be subject obviously to the
commentary of society, and the commentary of society has not been kind or
supportive of what they have done.
Under those circumstances, I am sure that they will be
searching their own souls to determine whether or not this is a matter that
they can leave untouched or whether or not they ought to reconsider.
Goods and Services Tax
Replacement
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the
Minister of Finance.
It appears that the Liberal government in Ottawa is about to
renege on its election promise to eliminate the hated GST. It looks as though all we are going to get
from the Liberals is a name change and a continuation of the regressive tax
that Canadians and Manitobans detest.
My question is, has the Minister of Finance a position on
this matter, and has he relayed it to the federal Minister of Finance?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the member for Brandon East for that question.
We had a question a few weeks ago on this issue and we indicated, we,
like most provinces in Canada, are awaiting the report of the House of Commons
committee that was mandated to review the GST.
They are scheduled to report, now, I believe, on June 20, and that
report is going to be one of the agenda items when we meet at the end of
June. Finance ministers meet at the end
of June. That item is on the
agenda. When we met as western and
territorial ministers during the Western Premiers' Conference, again we
discussed that only one province had actually gone and made a presentation.
This is a federal tax.
It is a commitment, as the member said, of the federal Liberals in terms
of replacing the GST. There have now
been media reports and rumours in terms of what they really are intending to do
with the GST, but we, like so many Canadians, are awaiting that report, and
that will obviously impact the decision we make.
We have some fundamental principles that we think are
absolutely important to any replacement for the GST in terms of accountability,
in terms of fairness, in terms of transparency, that any tax that a government
levels should be transparent and should not be hidden, Mr. Speaker. Those are some of the principles, as well as
dealing with overlap and duplication and so on.
Those are principles that we take to that meeting, Mr.
Speaker, that will impact how we judge whatever the federal government comes up
with in terms of replacing the GST or changing the GST.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Mr. Speaker, that is fine, but when the
Minister of Finance attends this meeting of federal‑provincial Ministers
of Finance, will he stand up for Manitoba consumers and insist that the Liberal
government live up to its election promise?
Is he prepared to put forward other proposals, and I am
sure he is, for fairer taxes, including the elimination of tax loopholes for
the rich and ending the exemption of taxes on family trusts?
Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, we always stand up for
Manitobans, and we will be doing that again at the Finance ministers' meeting
at the end of June. I enunciated for the
member the kinds of principles that were going forward in terms of any
replacement with the GST, and those are absolutely critical.
As well, when we met as Finance ministers for western
Canada, we said we want many tax issues on the table when we discuss this with
the federal Liberals, because provinces, for many years, have had many tax
issues. We have talked about a tax on
income instead of a tax on tax. We have
talked about one single tax collection agency for all of Canada to eliminate
duplication and overlap in terms of what consumers and individuals have to file‑‑many
principles.
It really is indeed ironic, Mr. Speaker, that those issues
seem to continue to be pushed to the back burner, and one issue that was a
Liberal campaign commitment and promise gets elevated to the top. We are going there with a series of tax
issues that we feel are important to Manitoba.
We expect them all to be addressed during those meetings.
Harmonization
Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon
East): I appreciate the minister's comments, and I
suggest to him he could bring up the issue of family trust exemption. There is $1 billion alone from that issue, on
that one particular measure, that the Government of Canada could obtain. So that is something the minister could do
very positively, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to ask my final question to the minister. Are the minister and his staff now in
consultation or discussion with the federal government Ministry of Finance on
the possibility of harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST? I would add, Mr. Speaker, this would be a
move that would be bad news for Manitobans, however rational some people may
think it is, and would leave Manitobans to be even more cynical about governments.
* (1345)
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): The short answer,
Mr. Speaker, is no, we are not in any discussions with the federal government
on harmonization. We, as the member for
Brandon East knows, opposed harmonization, that taxes are not harmonized here
in Manitoba. I believe only one province
in Canada has, in fact, harmonized, and unless we see good and valid reasons,
that will continue to be our position.
We will await to see what this report does bring forward
from the House of Commons committee, but as I have already indicated, it has to
represent fairness for individual citizens of Manitoba and Canada. It has to have accountability; it has to have
transparency.
I will say again, Mr. Speaker, that we oppose any kind of a
hidden tax, that we are finally getting away from hidden taxes so that
consumers and the public are aware of what kind of taxes they are paying. Any step by the federal Liberals to go back
to hidden taxes, from our view, would be regressive.
I want to conclude, because I took that matter on family
trusts as notice when the member for Brandon East brought it up the other day,
we do have a position that trusts should not provide a vehicle to escape income
taxes on capital gains in perpetuity.
That is the concern with the issue the member brought up, because there
was a 21‑year freeze and there is now this extension of another 21 years,
so that is a concern of ours.
As he knows, it is a federal jurisdiction. It is an area of federal responsibility. I will be corresponding with my counterpart
the federal minister on this issue, and I am sure we will have an opportunity
to discuss it when we meet at the end of June.
Royal Canadian Legion
Headgear Policy
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I
listened closely to the initial questions today from the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Doer) and the responses of the Premier. I want to follow up with a further question
on the issue of the recent decision taken by the national council of the Legion.
I want to ask the Premier in view of his response, he did
mention that the province did not have a legal opinion at this point, I
believe, and he also indicated, I believe, that he felt the Manitoba human
rights act would not apply to this private organization.
Mr. Speaker, I believe‑‑[interjection] Well, if
I am misquoting the Premier, he will certainly correct me.
Can I ask the Premier, has he, in fact, has the government
sought any legal opinion from counsel‑‑and there is counsel from the
government assigned to cover human rights issues‑‑to specifically
give advice on whether or not this would potentially qualify as a breach of
that act, Mr. Speaker?
Hon. Gary Filmon
(Premier): Mr. Speaker, I certainly at no time said that
the human rights act would not apply.
I stated my regret at the decision, my disagreement with
the decision, and certainly the human rights act is there and has various
provisions that might indeed be used in a challenge. Any Manitoban could put forth a challenge under
the human rights act that would be reviewed by the Manitoba Human Rights
Commission.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, again, for the First Minister,
he has indicated publicly here that obviously the government does not support
that decision.
Has the Premier communicated that directly on behalf‑‑because
obviously there is three‑party agreement in this House on that issue‑‑of
his government to the National Legion Council in the wake of this decision,
that this is a regrettable decision in view of his government?
Mr. Filmon: Mr. Speaker, I am informed that a complaint
has already been filed before the Manitoba Human Rights Commission, and that
that complaint is now being dealt with and the process will prevail.
I have not conveyed my views at this point to the legion,
but certainly have no hesitation in doing so.
Mr. Edwards: Finally, I would obviously, in view of my
former question, suggest that that would be an appropriate thing to do and
leave it to the Premier to follow up on his commitment.
Finally, to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, there was some
suggestion in the wake of this decision that certain provincial wings, regional
wings of the legion, would, in fact, be revisiting the question on a local
level where they felt that perhaps the majority in that particular area did not
agree with it because, of course, this was a national delegated convention.
Has there been any discussion with the Manitoba branch with
respect to whether or not they will be seeking to revisit this issue for this
particular region of the country?
Mr. Filmon: I have not had an opportunity to have that
sort of discussion but would certainly encourage the provincial representation
to make their own review of it and perhaps change the position that their
national organization has taken.
Private Personal Care Homes
Operating Agreement
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, the minister has stated that the
government is doing a review of personal care homes and that he has set up a task
force to do that, and that means about 96 committees studying health care in
one form or the other, but who is counting?
Mr. Speaker, we welcome a review of personal care homes,
but we would ask the government to function much quicker. My question to the minister is with respect
to private personal care homes. Can the
minister advise this House whether the government has concluded an agreement
with the private personal care homes that would have them operate either
independently or arm's length of the provincial government?
* (1350)
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the honourable
member would raise a question today about personal care in Manitoba, especially
since earlier today the honourable member's colleague and many others from the
Icelandic community and others in Manitoba joined with us at the groundbreaking
ceremony for the new Betel home, which is going to be built over the course of
the next year. That will provide care
for a hundred additional Manitobans and provide many, many health care jobs in
that part of our province.
The honourable member spoke of numerous committees, and I
certainly can acknowledge that we have numerous committees at work. I am glad the honourable member said that,
Mr. Speaker, because day after day he says we do not consult. Well, how can he come in here today and
complain that we have 96 committees in health care?
We have health care professionals of all kinds helping us
with health care renewal issues. We are
proud of that, and we are going to be listening to a lot of that advice. We have health care consumers involved in
this process. We have doctors, we have
nurses, we have technicians, we have union members, we have all kinds of people
involved in this process, and I am very pleased about it.
With respect to the honourable member's question about some
kind of an agreement with respect to proprietary personal care, I will take
that question as notice.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well
there is only 6 percent representation by nurses on those committees and only 4
percent representation by consumers. In
fact, the Deputy Minister of Health, with his $4,000 salary increase, probably
is better represented on those committees.
My final supplementary to the minister: Will the minister, when he takes this
question as notice, confirm whether or not the government is in the process of
concluding an agreement or has concluded an agreement with private personal
care home operators that would see them function independently or arm's length
of government?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said
before about the operation of various task forces and implementation
committees, committees to provide good advice to government. We are pleased to have that input, and we
will take all of that input very seriously.
I think it is because we have done it that way that there is virtually
unanimous approval and support for the health care renewal program that we embarked
on in the spring of 1992. It is because
there was all of that consultation.
The honourable member cannot credibly come along today and
suggest that all of that consultation is for naught, because it is not. We are making very quality improvements in
our health care system in this province so that the people in the gallery today
and the people throughout Manitoba of the next generation will have a health
care system in the future, as opposed to the one they would not have if we
follow the advice of honourable members opposite.
I said I would take the honourable member's question as
notice, and I will do that.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
same minister: The minister is probably
familiar with Mr. David Paskoe. Can the minister,
when he looks up this information and tries to determine what is going on in
the private care nursing homes, can he confirm whether or not Mr. Paskoe has
been hired by the private care nursing home operators to prepare a presentation
to government that would have private care home operators operate their own
homes with their own standards, arm's length from government?
Mr. McCrae: I told the honourable member I would take
notice of these questions, and I will do so, but I remind the honourable member
that a review that is looking at all of the changes in personal care in
Manitoba is underway. We expect that
review to complete its work and to give us the kinds of recommendations we will
need to ensure that the highest standards of safety achievable will be achieved
in Manitoba.
I remind the honourable member of the report put out by the
Manitoba Centre on Health Policy and Evaluation, however, that says that
personal care in Manitoba is of a very high quality, and I am very pleased to
be able to say that to all of the seniors and all of those who need personal
care in Manitoba and their families.
* (1355)
Louisiana‑Pacific Co.
Emission Controls
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, when the Louisiana‑Pacific
proposal was first announced, the Minister of Environment promised that he
would put in place guidelines that would result in a state‑of‑the‑art
plant with state‑of‑the‑art emission controls.
I want to ask the Minister of Environment why he has not
insisted that Louisiana‑Pacific install state‑of‑the‑art
pollution control equipment, namely regenerative thermal oxidization
incinerators, which the EPA has found to be much more efficient than the E‑Tube
emission controls which this government has allowed and which are being
replaced in the U.S. plants which are being refurbished.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, the
member might not recall that The Environment Act that we are operating under
was introduced first by the members of the party of which she is part. It is very site‑specific and it is very
much dependent on information being provided at the Clean Environment
Commission. The recommendations and the
discussion that flow from those hearings determine the precise regulatory
format that we require the industry to operate under, given the site‑specific
requirements.
That is the process that we are entered into. Those are the requirements that we will make
Louisiana‑Pacific fall under. I
think she should appreciate that this is now going into a process that is open,
is public. If she has those kinds of
concerns, let her go there and say so.
Ms. Wowchuk: I can assure the minister that I will, but I
would ask this minister that he would show some leadership. This is an opportunity for this government to
set some standards that will be amongst the best in the country, in North
America.
Why will they not insist on and set guidelines in place
that will result in the best possible emission controls in this plant and be a
leader in this country?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, we will be setting the best
standards in the country, and we will be the leaders.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would like to ask the minister, will he
insist that the RTO equipment be installed in this plant, which controls much
more of the pollution; in fact, will eliminate 95 percent of the particles
material and 90 percent of the volatile organic compound, much more than the E‑Tube
equipment will remove? Will they insist
on that when the plant is finally built?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to reflect on any
member of this House, but I put my trust in the process we are embarking upon
where all these questions will be answered in front of the Clean Environment
Commission by the corporation. They will
either provide the correct answers or they will not operate.
Hepatitis C Virus
Blood Supply Tracing
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Yesterday, the honourable member for Kildonan
(Mr. Chomiak) asked some questions about hepatitis C contamination in the blood
supply, and the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) kindly took the questions as
notice. I have a very brief response to
the honourable member.
Currently, Manitoba Health, through the Manitoba Advisory
Committee on Infectious Disease, will be discussing this issue at its June 24
meeting. We are awaiting the outcome of
a June 13 meeting being held by the Red Cross at a national level.
In the meantime, we are supporting the public health
message that individuals who have been transfused prior to 1990 should be
screened by their physicians to see if they are infected. This is particularly important if an
individual is unwell.
There is a national study being conducted by the Laboratory
Centre for Disease Control, and the results of that study are expected to be
available by July of this year. A
further policy will be forthcoming from Manitoba Health when these and other
consultations have been completed.
Legislative Building
Wheelchair Access
Mr. Gregory Dewar
(Selkirk): Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by tabling
a letter requesting the Minister of Government Services to make the front of
this building accessible to wheelchairs.
My questions are for the Minister of Government
Services. Has the minister reviewed his
position concerning the construction of the ramp at the front of this
building? Will he meet with Manitobans
with Disabilities who are requesting him to change his position?
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, first of all, I think the member is asking me to ignore approximately
30 other locations throughout Manitoba that have no access, no access
whatsoever. We in '88‑89 started
that program, and we have established doing those types of programs that have
no access. This particular building has
two accesses to it.
To give you an idea, in 1988‑89, we spent $148,000;
'89‑90, $426,000; '90‑91, $864,000; '91‑92, we spent
$187,000; '92‑93, we spent $249,000 in this particular building; in '93‑94,
$181,000; and we are anticipating spending a further $792,000 again in '94‑95,
doing the buildings that have no access now.
That is the responsibility we have to make sure all our
buildings throughout Manitoba and Winnipeg have access, that access
requirement.
* (1400)
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, the minister failed to answer my
question. My question was, would he meet
with individuals who are concerned about this issue, Manitobans with
Disabilities? Will he meet with them and
explain, apparently, his position on this issue to individuals who are
requesting the minister to change his position on this issue?
Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, prior to the expenditure of
$181,000 on the building, '93‑94, we had full consultation with the
society for disabled Manitobans, as well as the Human Rights Commission. This all took place prior to the construction
to make sure that people in the gallery could come here, to make sure that we
looked after the ramp that was close to the many parking spots that are made
available to these people to make sure they have easy access in and out of this
building.
Mr. Dewar: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the minister
is saying no to these individuals.
On May 31, in answer to one of my questions, the minister
said this work was not just a repair, and I would assume that this work does
fall under the City of Winnipeg's building code by‑law. As such, why is he not making the front
accessible as any other builder or contractor in this province would be
required to do?
Mr. Ducharme: For the information of the member across the
way, there is no front or back to this building. It is east, west, north and south, and two of
them have accessible locations to this building‑‑two‑‑and
very, very nice access to the west side of this building, Mr. Speaker.
Child and Family Services
Psychiatric Services
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson).
I have been informed that there is a young girl, 17 years
of age, with severe psychiatric problems who had been sent out of province for
treatment when she became a young offender.
Child and Family Services brought her back to Winnipeg, and while she
was awaiting placement, she offended again.
She is now in the Remand Centre and has been there for several weeks.
While the minister may not be able to provide an answer
with the details of the situation, is it her department's policy to use the
Remand Centre as a holding facility for adolescents with severe psychiatric
problems?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister
of Justice and Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, again, I would not want to speak about any specific case, and any
remarks that I make should not be attributed to any case. However, where there is, as a result of
abusive or destructive behaviour, an inability for the safety of the individual
to maintain them at the Youth Centre, then, yes, they will be moved to a
facility in which we can look after that individual's need.
Ms. McCormick: My second question is for the Minister of
Family Services.
Child and Family Services brought this child back to
Winnipeg, and while she was awaiting placement with her mother, she re‑offended.
Is it the practice of Child and Family Services to send
troubled children who have serious psychological or psychiatric problems and
adolescent offenders out of province for treatment because Manitoba facilities
are inadequate?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson
(Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as the Minister of Family Services, I do not believe it is my role or
within my ability to speak about individual circumstances and individual cases.
I would have liked the information or particulars that my
honourable friend might have brought to my attention in a manner in which I
could look into those instances and provide as much detailed information as
possible within my ability and under the legislation that I am bound by.
Ms. McCormick: My final supplementary is to the same
minister.
I will provide her with the information, but I would like
to know, in addition, why this child has not been placed in a more appropriate
setting, such as the special ward at Health Sciences, which is PX3.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Again, I must reiterate that I do not believe
it is within my mandate to talk specifics about any individual case, especially
on the child welfare side of things.
Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour, with any further information
that my honourable friend has, to investigate and ensure that appropriate
decisions have been made in the best interests of that child.
Building Products
Labour Dispute
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Labour.
Employees at Building Products have repeatedly indicated
their willingness to continue negotiations.
Could the minister report to the House what active steps he has taken in
the past year to bring the employer to the negotiating table and to seek an end
to a strike which is now entering its third year?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, we appointed some time ago a mediator
to this particular dispute who has been in place and who has communicated with
both sides on a regular basis.
As I am sure members opposite would appreciate, in order
for mediation to work, there has to be a desire on the part of both parties to
want that process. To date, that has not
been the case.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister undertake to investigate
the working conditions of the replacement workers at Building Products,
particularly the hours and the rates of pay, and would he report back to the
House?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the Employment Standards branch
regularly investigates complaints that are made with respect to hours of work
and conditions of employment. If a
complaint is made, we will undertake to make an appropriate investigation as we
would do in any other case.
Workforce 2000
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): My final supplementary is to the Minister of
Finance.
I would like to ask him to explain to the House, or at
least to bring a response at a later time to explain why Building Products
received a Workforce 2000 payroll rebate this year. Could he tell us whether, in fact, that
payroll rebate training grant was used to train those replacement workers?
Hon. Eric Stefanson
(Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I will,
in fact, take that question as notice.
As the member knows, Workforce 2000 is directly under the
responsibility of the Department of Education, but there is an element, because
of the payroll tax credit system, that does provide some of the training funds. So I will take the particulars.
Wine Boutiques
Start‑up Costs
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago, we on this
side put the government on notice that their intention to introduce specialty
wine boutiques would cause problems not only for the Manitoba Liquor
Commission, but for the taxpayers of the province of Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in committee, the minister
responsible acknowledged that they have now hired a consultant and are paying
the consultant some $25,000 to review the questions that were asked about a
year ago. Yesterday, as well, we
reviewed the Crown Corporations Council report in which they identify the fact
that the province is going to lose money as a result of the introduction of
specialty wine boutiques.
My question to the minister is, is the consultant going to
answer the question, how much money is this novel idea going to cost taxpayers?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): Mr. Speaker, the member for Flin Flon had an
opportunity to sit through part of the committee earlier this week to review
the wine stores and the MLCC Annual Report.
I indicated at that time that government was aware that the MLCC had
employed an outside consultant, about which we had a chance to discuss some of
the details.
The consultant particularly is looking at the discount
rates at which the product will be passed along to these particular
entrepreneurs. As a result of that, they
are bringing back a position to the government, and certainly, as the
experience is in some of the other jurisdictions, if there is a modest increase
in the amount of product sold, there will be no impact to government revenue.
Mr. Storie: Mr. Speaker, in the paper today, we have one
of the people or a couple of people who are interested in wine boutiques
talking about the government dithering.
The government continues to dither, and this minister is compounding the
problem by refusing to answer the question.
The question, Mr. Speaker, to the minister is simple. Will the consultant be asked to identify how
much this is going to cost the government in lost revenue from the Manitoba
Liquor Commission to the Consolidated Revenue?
How much?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the member would
listen, his question had been answered.
I had indicated if there was a modest increase in the amount of product
that is being sold, there would be no impact to the revenue of the province.
* (1410)
Public Consultations
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, one of the recommendations that
the Crown Corporations Council also made was the suggestion that this
consultant's report be reviewed thoroughly.
My question to the minister is, will we finally get a
chance to review in a public way both the recommendations and the report of the
consultant whom the government has hired and to have public consultation
hearings on this matter before the government finally implements something that
is going to cost the taxpayers money?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister charged with the administration of The Liquor Control Act): The member did not indicate in his preamble
that the report that was tabled from the Crown Corporations Council did endorse
the fact that government is asking an outside third party to take a look at
this.
I have indicated that we are anticipating that report from
the consultant in the near future, and certainly, we will follow the direction
given by the Crown Corporations Council.
Northern Flood Agreement
Cross Lake‑‑All‑Weather Road
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Mr. Speaker, Recommendation 25 of the Lake
Winnipeg, Churchill and Nelson River Study Board report reads that an all‑weather
road be built connecting Cross Lake community road network with the Jenpeg
access road. This recommendation was
incorporated into the Northern Flood Agreement through Article 17.1. On December 16, 1993, Arbitrator MacLean
ruled that the agreement upon terms has not been met for an all‑weather
road from Provincial Road 373 to Cross Lake.
My question is for the Minister of Highways and
Transportation (Mr. Findlay) or the Minister responsible for Northern Affairs
or Hydro. What steps has the minister
taken to meet the specific requirements of the Northern Flood Agreement that
were required as a result of the agreement between this government, the
Government of Canada, Hydro and the bands?
Hon. Darren Praznik
(Minister of Northern Affairs): To hear
a question come from the New Democratic Party benches about the Northern Flood
Agreement, it is absolutely incredible because I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we
all know, of course, it has been a long and difficult set of negotiations, and
we hope to have them completed at some time in the future.
I can tell the honourable member opposite that the real
work in resolving the issues of northern flooding and proper compensation have
been done by Progressive Conservative governments in this province, and the New
Democrats continually ignored the interests of settling those agreements.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the vast majority of agreements
were concluded long before this government came‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for Transcona, with your question.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this ruling by the arbitrator
took place in December of 1993. It is
now June of 1994. What has this
government been sitting on? Why has it
taken them six months to make a decision on whether or not they are going to
appeal this ruling? Why are they
delaying this action?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, the members opposite when in
government sat on this for 16 years. We
continue‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the
Minister of Northern Affairs knows that what he is putting on the record is
absolutely blatantly, patently, false.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Speaker: The honourable Minister of Northern Affairs,
to finish with his answer.
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, this government, particularly
under the leadership of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey) as the first Minister of
Northern Affairs in this government, moved farther to conclude the agreements
with each community. We are continuing
to do that, and it is our intention to resolve those agreements and not take
the northern native vote for granted in Manitoba, as the New Democrats have
done decade after decade.
Mr. Reid: My final supplementary to the same
minister: Can this minister then explain
why the Northern Flood Agreement said there will be no appeals except based on
the question of law or jurisdiction? Why
is this government then appealing the decision of their own appointed
arbitrator in this matter?
Mr. Praznik: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member this. It is a very complicated set of negotiations
that people are involved in. There are
hosts of issues involved.
The member opposite pulls one piece out and says there is
some problem, but I can tell the honourable member, we have advanced farther in
real positive ways than the members of his party has ever contemplated. We will get into those issues and the
specifics of them in Estimates, and I look forward to that debate.
Government Departments
Protocols‑‑Information Sharing
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Speaker, as soon as the caucus heard
about this young woman who was in the Remand Centre, my colleague from The
Maples contacted the Remand Centre. We
were referred to the Minister of Justice's office yesterday. We have not received a call.
My question is for either the Minister of Health (Mr.
McCrae), the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson) or the Minister of
Education (Mr. Manness).
Can one of these ministers tell us when we are going to
finally receive a protocol about how the government departments, the three of
them, handle these particular individuals so that young girls such as this and
other individuals do not fall through the cracks and end up being placed
inappropriately? When are we going to
have some protocols? We have been
waiting for two years, and we have not seen anything.
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, again, both my colleague the Minister of Family Services
(Mrs. Mitchelson) and myself have said that we are not able to speak about that
individual case. In fact, it would be
wrong for us to speak about that case which the member continues to reference,
having been told that anything we say should not be attributed to a single
case.
However, as I answered in this House earlier, the protocol
which was suggested by the Manitoba Teachers' Society and the Manitoba
Association of School Trustees has been reviewed by government. The ministers involved are making progress,
and I expect this very, very shortly.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Deputy Premier have leave
to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Farm Family of the Year
Hon. James Downey
(Deputy Premier): I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the
House.
I would like all members to join with me in acknowledging
and congratulating Ron and Pat Rutherford from Melita, Manitoba, neighbours of
our families. They have been selected as
Farm Family of the Year for the Red River Ex this year. It is extremely important this Year of the
Family that we acknowledge and recognize family farms and the operators of
those farms.
Ron and Pat have three children who are part of their
operation. They farm approximately 1,300
acres in the Melita area. Ron is, as
well, a graduate of the University of Manitoba in the diploma course and has
also been instrumental in the forming of the Sandy Lands Soil Management
Program and has encouraged tree planting, minimum tillage, and has been a
member of many farm organizations, particularly the Manitoba‑North Dakota
Zero‑Till Association, Manitoba Pool Elevators, the Western Wheat
Growers, the Keystone Agricultural Producers and, in fact, is a leader, you may
say literally, in the field of agriculture.
Let me say as well, Mr. Speaker, that Pat plays an
extremely important role on the farm, as well as working in several businesses
in the community, as well as being involved in the Evening Guild Hospital Aid
and local church organization.
I ask all members to join me in congratulating Ron and Pat
and their family in being selected family farmers of the year for the Red River
Ex. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the official
opposition have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): I would like to join the Deputy Premier and
member for Arthur in his tribute to the Rutherford family and the awarding this
year of the 1994 Farm Family of the Year award.
I know this is a very important presentation and award, a
very important milestone in a family's life.
I know it means a lot because of the great challenges that producers now
have in western Canada dealing with crisis and costs and other challenges that
people have to maintain this vital part of our Manitoba industry, the
agricultural component of our province.
I know what an honour this is. I know, previously sitting in a caucus with
the previous winner, Clarence Baker, how important it was for his family to
have this award. When you drive down to
the Brokenhead communities in that constituency and see the sign very, very
prominently placed on the family farm, Farmer of the Year, I know it means a
lot to both the family that received it and his or her neighbours.
We congratulate the Rutherford family on this tremendous
award they received this year. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Leader of the second
opposition party have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I want to
join comments with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Downey), as well as the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Doer), in congratulating the Rutherford family on this very
important award.
I also want to indicate, as the Leader of the Opposition
has, that farm families across this province are clearly in very challenging
times and in a time in our country's and our province's history when farm
families have to really face new challenges that were not even contemplated in
prior generations, all the more reason to celebrate and honour those families
who are leading in terms of making sure that the family farm does survive and
indeed it prospers in our economy. That
is all of our job here, but obviously, we very much congratulate and look
forward to having a chance to personally congratulate this family on this
outstanding achievement.
Mr. Speaker, I do want to add that I know that there were
many, many other families in the farming community who were considered for
this, and I am sure that most, if not all of those, were deserving, as
well. Clearly, this family has risen
above, and we share with them our congratulations on this very important
occasion. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Broadway have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Philippine Heritage Week
Mr. Conrad Santos
(Broadway): Mr. Speaker, the individual members of the
Philippine community and many of its component‑organized groups shall be
celebrating the Philippine Heritage Week starting with a flag‑raising
ceremony at the City Hall quadrangle this Sunday, June 5, followed by three
different events in the evening happening in three different places: Hawaiian Night at the Filipino Seniors Hall
at 49 Euclid Street; a musical presentation at the Mennonite Brethren Collegiate
at 180 Riverton Avenue; and a National Council of Filipino‑Canadian
Association Youth Workshop at the Philippine Centre at 88 Juno Street.
Tuesday, June 6, will be the interfaith church services at
88 Juno Street, followed by the Filipino Seniors Night at the Philippine
Centre. On Wednesday, the Manitoba
Association of Filipino Teachers will have a cultural presentation of songs and
dances at Wellington School at 690 Beverley Street, which is within the Broadway
constituency, followed by Thursday's Philippine youth Breaking the Edge
conference at the West End Cultural Centre at 586 Ellice Avenue.
On Friday, June 10, at 6 p.m., is the Philippine
Association of Manitoba‑sponsored Filipino‑Canadian Friendship
Night, which used to be called the traditional Philippine Independence Ball, at
the Centennial Ballroom, International Inn at 1808 Wellington Avenue, corner of
Berry Street.
On Saturday, June 11, the Manitoba Association of Filipino
Teachers will have a Rondalla musical presentation at the Prairie Rose Theatre
and a community picnic on Sunday at Assiniboine Park at 2809 Roblin Boulevard.
Mr. Speaker, may I say something in my dialect?
Mr. Speaker: As long as you provide Hansard.
Tagalog spoken.
Mr. Santos: On behalf of the Manitoba New Democratic
Party caucus in the Manitoba Legislative Assembly, we wish the entire Filipino‑Canadian
community all the best in their week‑long celebration of the Philippine
Heritage Week. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Inkster have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, the member for Broadway (Mr.
Santos) has brought to the attention of the House a week full of activities
that once again the Filipino community is going to be making available, not
only for members of the Filipino community but for members outside of the
community to be able to experience first‑hand, as I have over the last
six years, in terms of what sort of Filipino hospitality is out there and to
get a better appreciation and understanding of the culture and heritage that
this particular community has brought and contributed to Canada. I would encourage members of the Legislature
to go out and attend a couple of these events.
This is something, as I say, that they have done on an
annual basis. I have had the good
fortune to be able to participate in them in the past, and I look forward to
participating in it again this year, and you will witness first‑hand the
literally hundreds of volunteers that make this week possible. It is a pleasant experience and, again, I
encourage all members to get involved and participate in the Filipino
Independence Week.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr. Speaker, recently the United Nations
declared again what all of us in this House are well aware of, that Canada is
the finest country in the world to live in.
Events such as the ones that the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) has
indicated will be taking place over the next week, which all members of the
House, I am sure, will make an effort to attend, symbolize the manner in which
Canada has grown and welcomed people from all parts of this world as citizens
of this country.
I am pleased that our caucus would like to join with all
other Manitobans to participate in the celebration of the Filipino community,
some 35,000 here in Winnipeg, and we look forward to participating in it.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): I move, seconded by the member for Burrows
(Mr. Martindale), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Thompson (Mr. Ashton) for Interlake (Mr. Clif
Evans) for Thursday, June 9, at 10 a.m.
I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Municipal
Affairs be amended as follows: Rossmere
(Mr. Schellenberg) for Elmwood (Mr. Maloway) for Tuesday, June 14, for 10 a.m.
I move, seconded by the member for Burrows (Mr.
Martindale), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities
and Natural Resources be amended as follows:
Transcona (Mr. Reid) for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) for Tuesday, June 21, at
10 a.m.
Motions agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, would you
canvass the House to see if there is unanimous consent for the withdrawal from
the Order Paper of Bill 6.
Mr. Speaker: Is there leave of the House to allow the
honourable government House leader to withdraw Bill 6 from the Order Paper?
Some Honourable Members: Leave.
Mr. Speaker: Leave.
It is agreed to. I would like to
thank all honourable members.
* (1430)
Mr. Ernst: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings), 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 Department of
Agriculture; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the
Chair for the Department of Justice.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
AGRICULTURE
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel
Laurendeau): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order. This afternoon this section of
the Committee of Supply, meeting in Room 255, will resume consideration of the
Estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
When the committee last sat, it had been considering item
5. Regional Agricultural Services (a) Northwest Region (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits on page 17 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass?
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yesterday when we
adjourned, we were discussing the amount of time that Ag reps and other people
in the Ag office were spending on the implementation and completion of forms on
the GRIP program, and I was asking the minister how that was calculated, what
amounts of time the different employees had put in, and how that money was
recovered from the federal government.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, as I indicated just in closing last evening's session of the
committee, it is important for financial reasons for the department to keep a
pretty careful log on the hours that staff were seconded to work on the GRIP
program because of the federal support in paying some of these salaries. So I can give her, first of all, in some global
figure for the year '93‑94, some 44,724 hours were actually attributed to
the GRIP account for a total expenditure value in dollars of slightly in excess
of a million dollars, $1,118,100.
It may be of interest to the honourable member simply to
note how that would break down in a particular area or region. My regional director from the Northwest has
indicated the situation in the Swan River area, for instance, where we had our
livestock specialist dedicate some 32 days; our home economist, some 34 days;
our farm management specialist, 37.5 days; the Ag rep, as you would expect,
devoting quite a bit of his time, 44 days; and the secretary also down for 50
days. So that kind of accounting was
taken throughout the province by the different offices and turned into central
administration so that these work credits could then be forwarded on to
Agriculture Canada for the cost‑sharing formula.
I am advised that the cost‑sharing formula was 50‑50. In other words, it would be appropriate,
then, to tell the committee that half of that $1,118,000 was recovered from
Ottawa as their support for the administrative work in the installation of the
GRIP program.
Ms. Wowchuk: Just for clarification, then, does that show
up as some of what we see as recoverable under this section where we see
Recoverable from Other Appropriations?
Is that what that money is, money that is coming back from the federal
government, reimbursement for time allocated to GRIP?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the honourable member
is correct. I am advised that is the
case.
* (1440)
Ms. Wowchuk: As we look at new technology and the
information highway that we hear so much about, I would anticipate that this
will change the way in which communications are made across the regions. I would have anticipated that this would
perhaps result in additional cost to the department to equip the offices with
the necessary equipment. But I see that
when we look at each of the regions, in fact, the communication costs in each
of the departments are down, except for the eastern and Interlake region.
Can we have some indication as to why there would be a
decrease in communication costs? Does
the minister anticipate with the new technology and information that are
becoming available, that there will be a need to install additional equipment
into the various offices throughout the region?
Mr. Enns: Just again from having had the opportunity to
visit a number of operations in different parts of the province during my short
period of coming back into the ministry, the office landscape is changing. We see farm management courses being provided
on new computer technology. I am advised
that a considerable amount of this is taking place throughout the area.
The specific question that the member asks when noting the
decrease in the item Other Expenditures under Communication is a result of some
$15,500 plain reduction in printing costs due to electronic handling of certain
communications and publications, a further $6,000 reduction due to some planned
implementation of some preferred telephone packaging of costs, which is partly
because of the event of competition coming into the telecommunications
process. I am sure the honourable member
is aware that MTS is actively pursuing and making more attractive, particularly
commercial packages, for the business community, including the Department of
Agriculture, in their telecommunications costs.
I am sure, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that the department
could and will be looking for some additional funds as we upgrade and move
along into the electronic age. That is
where some of the challenge of managing comes in: it is to try to do with less. We have put perhaps even more pressure on the
department by making every attempt to maintain employee and staff people
because of the kind of work that we do.
Our mandate with the farm community of Manitoba is very
often a very direct and personal one. I
suspect that over the last several years there has been, if anything, a directive
to look as hard as possible at all other costs and other expenditures as we
attempt to accommodate valuable employees in redeployment positions, as we
attempt to maintain staff levels in the various functions that the department
carries out at close to optimum levels.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister indicated that we now have
competition within the telecommunications industry. Is the department now buying services outside
the Manitoba Telephone System, in any of the regions?
Mr. Enns: No. I
see the senior management shaking their head; that is not the case. We are quite pleased to continue working with
MTS, and I imagine we will. It just came
to mind because I was somewhat surprised to receive a call at home on the farm
from an MTS employee, salesperson, advising me of the fact that on examination
of my own personal monthly telephone bill, if I signed on to a particular
program, I would be eligible for some modest reductions of $4, $6 or $7 a
month. They had taken a computer readout
on the monthly billings that I incurred at home on the farm.
That was my first personal contact with the fact that MTS
is out there actively pursuing and offering some discount packages based on
your level of long distance calls that your phone was being used. I am assuming they are doing that, certainly,
with their prime business customers, and, certainly, the government would be
included in that category.
To answer your question, no, we support and use the
services of MTS.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to go on to
the Crown Lands Branch. There is one of
the areas that is the Crown Land Sales Program.
I want to ask, first of all, is there a move to dispose or acquire more
Crown lands? I recall a time a few years
ago when there was an attempt made to purchase Crown land that was in close
proximity to a mountain, and, I think particularly around the Duck and the
Porcupine Mountains where there was an exchange program where a farmer owned
some land close along the mountain and was able to exchange it for other land.
Is the department actively pursuing to purchase any
additional Crown land to straighten out some of those borders along the
mountain, or are there any attempts made to speed up the process of disposing
of Crown land that is dispersed amongst the agriculture land?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the question would be
probably more appropriately directed to the Department of Natural Resources,
which is and has the principal responsibility as custodians of Crown lands in
the province.
I am aware, not that directly anymore, but I am aware that
from time to time, particularly through their Parks branch, recommendations
come up or shifts in department for some additional purchase of Crown lands in
some instances to straighten out park boundaries or from some instances as well
where there are lands that have been particularly designated that perhaps for
other reasons other than parks, Endangered Spaces Program, et cetera, or for
the Ecological Reserves program.
Different classifications for different levels of protection, if you
like, sometimes are floating about within the Department of Natural Resources.
Representatives from Agricultural Crown Lands just inform
me that is not our function. We
administer the lands once they have been designated as appropriate for
agricultural purposes, and then they come into our shop and work under the
regulations that the Agricultural Crown Lands division of the Department of
Agriculture imposes on it.
Ms. Wowchuk: Earlier in the week we discussed the
increased amount of activity in the hog and the cattle industry, and with the
increased amount of cattle, there will be more demands on Crown lands. People are looking for pasture land, leased
land.
I wonder if as a result of this there has been any change
in the fee structure, any reclassification of the Crown lands in that
area. Has there been any change in the
rates of rent, and are those rates consistent across the province?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to answer the last
question first, there have been no changes with respect to this year's charges
on the leasing of Crown land. I would
not want to make that commitment for anything more than the present.
I think there is a review committee in process or has been
looking at it in conjunction with the Crown Lands advisory board that helps us
in this matter as well.
* (1450)
The honourable member is correct. There is considerable pressure or increase‑‑and
we are noticing increasing pressure on the use of Crown lands for livestock purposes
for several reasons. Our beef herds are
growing. They have grown upwards by 4
percent, 5 percent and 6 percent in Manitoba in the last few years, and that
is, quite frankly, a welcomed development.
Some of us believe that we could sustain a considerably
larger beef herd. It would be of
interest to some members that our herds used to be larger. In the early '70s, mid‑'70s, our beef
herd was in the order of 600,000 or in that range, and we had dropped down to
some 450,000, and are only now, because of the strong prices that we have had
in the past five, six years, seeing that herd coming back to the size that we
enjoyed in the early '70s.
My personal belief is that we could and should set as an
objective for having a million beef cows in the province. Again, it is part of the overall‑‑
An Honourable Member: Like the beaver, one for each.
Mr. Enns: Well, a little bit like the beaver. If we could have a million beavers, we should
have a million cows. It fits into the
overall strategy of the Department of Agriculture to have levels of livestock
within the province that provide alternative uses for our feed grains, so we
are not held to ransom on what the international community is prepared to pay
for our feed grains or for our barley.
Particularly, as I said earlier, if it is going to be more costly to
move our feed grains into export position, then we should be looking to these
kind of developments.
Again, just to come back, we do have a Forage Lease Rental
Review Committee in operation. Committee
members are Mr. John Neabel, who, by the way, I might inform the committee, has
just recently retired as director of the Agricultural Crown Lands
division. We have Mr. Lavern Elliott
from Grandview. We have Mr. Gil Lahaie
from Dominion City, Mr. Brent McCannell from Dauphin, Mr. Mark Emilson from
Vogar, from the Manitoba Cattle Producers' Association, and Mr. Bill Gardiner
from Dauphin, who is a representative of Agricultural Crown Lands.
This committee is reviewing the practices and, specifically,
the level of charges for various classifications of leased land and no doubt
will be making recommendations to me in due order. No changes are contemplated for this year, of
course, because the notices have long gone out and the land is under contract.
I have just a bit more specific information that I may put
on the record. Manitoba's 10,000 cattle
producers at a total of 563,000 cows and replacement heifers on the farms on
July 1, 1993. This is an increase of
some 8 percent from a year earlier, so we have been increasing at 6, 7, 8
percent in the last few years. A further
increase of at least 7 percent is likely as forecast for the year '94, bringing
the potential breeding herd up to just in excess of 600,000, only slightly
below the record number of 612,000 that were in the province in July of 1975.
So we are just now coming back to where we were in 1975,
and I think if the prevailing stability in cattle pricing, in cattle marketing
continues then I would look forward, and I would challenge, my Animal Industry
branch would challenge the Department of Agriculture, would challenge these
10,000 Manitoba beef producers that there is room for additional expansion in
the beef industry.
Whether k.d. lang thinks that meat stinks, I think she
stinks, and I know my colleague the member for Arthur (Mr. Downey) agrees with
me.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister has answered some of the
questions I was going to ask with regard to committee, and we will, I am sure,
when the committee reports, the minister will provide us with that information
in due course as to what the committee recommends as far as changing and uses
of Crown lands, I would anticipate, and changing fee structures. We will await that report.
As the minister indicated, the competition to acquire Crown
land leases is increasing, and I wonder what kind of guidelines the board, or
whoever makes the decision on letting the lease go, what kind of guidelines
they follow, and in particular, if an existing operator or a family has had a
piece of land they have been leasing and there is interest from another family
or another operation in the area, does that piece of land stay with the family
that has it?
If a lease is signed, I would assume, for several years, is
there a risk that someone who has established in the area stands a chance of
losing it, or are there guidelines that protect the person that already has the
land?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the honourable member
is correct, there is increasing competition for some of this land, not solely
brought on by the increase in the beef herd that I have just mentioned, but the
member is again fully aware that these cows are running into more and more
horses on the range. The PMU herd, which
is in the range of 35,000 to 40,000, requires pasture land as well.
I am advised by departmental staff that upwards to 5
percent of the clients who deal with agricultural Crown lands are, in fact, PMU
or horse operator people. There are and
have been for a number of years‑‑and I do not think these have
changed much over the last number of years‑‑specific regulations
that deal with eligibility to acquire and/or to hold agricultural Crown land
under lease or permit, and there are different categories of leases, of course,
a long‑term lease versus annual or a several‑year permit. Some of the criteria, I would just maybe
remind the committee members, are that the applicant must be of the full age of
18 years and not over 65. However, they
may continue to permit the land over the age of 65 until other arrangements are
made.
Applicants shall fulfill these further requirements. They must be Canadian citizens or have landed
immigrant status, be a Canadian corporation or be a resident of Manitoba. All of those things are further
requirements. The person or the
corporation applying is not acting as a trustee for a person who is not a
Canadian citizen.
In other words, it is not permissible for a non‑Canadian
through somebody else to acquire and hold on to large tracts or any tracts of
Crown lands. The applicant shall be
actively involved in the management of the farm or ranch and shall in
conjunction with his or her family supply the majority of the labour. That is sometimes a difficult requirement for
the branch to rule on. I think the
honourable members will permit that.
In farming, as the member put on the record just a few days
ago, all too often farm operators, members of family farms, have to find off‑farm
income in order to maintain the farm.
That is of course the case. Now
too rigid an application of this rule can cause some difficulty for the branch
and their interpretation then. That is a
flavour of the kinds of regulations that are applied.
There is this question, who provides or who gives their
lease land to whom. That is a
departmental function by Crown Lands. If
there is a dispute or an argument arises, then the decision by the department
can be appealed and looked at by the Crown Lands advisory appeal board which is
by and large given the same kind of criteria instructions. They, as all appeal boards, are there for a
second look or a second opinion and indeed to give the appellant an opportunity
to present his case for consideration for the leasing of land.
* (1500)
Ms. Wowchuk: With the increased demand on this Crown land
for leases, have there been many cases that have been challenged by other
producers in the area, and have those cases all been dealt with?
Mr. Enns: As a lessee of land myself, I have a reasonable
familiarity with the program that is offered by the department. I have no doubt that there are challenges
from time to time, and there have been a number of allocation appeals. For instance, in '92, there were 14; in '93,
there were six. Number of the
allocations upheld‑‑in '92, it was nine; number of allocations
changed, you know, two and five.
Again, just to give you a flavour, I would think in the
main the allocation as originally made by the department has proven to be
correct and sound and even under appeal is, in most instances, upheld. There are occasions when other information
comes to light or information that was provided to the department, to the
branch, did not always perhaps stand up to full scrutiny, and that brought
about a change in the allocation.
We have, of course, different types of leases‑‑as
I said earlier, the long‑term, what we call kind‑of ranch lease,
lifetime lease to age 65 with certain specific conditions attached to it. We have special forage leases that deal more
specifically with the production of forage crops of hay, and we have the more
casual permits for our shorter period of time that the department can provide.
Ms. Wowchuk: Is this the appropriate section to ask a
question about community pasture or does it fall somewhere else?
Mr. Enns: I think we could provide some information
about community pastures, but the honourable member is aware that the community
pasture program is of course a federal program.
The information so provided is not meant to speak on their behalf, but
we do have, you know, some basic information with respect to, for instance, the
number of animals that have been pastured in community pastures, the charges
that they‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: So community pastures is a federal branch;
this department has no involvement with community pastures then. If that is the case, I will just leave that
one then.
Mr. Enns: Staff advises me that what we do is we are in
touch with the operators of community pastures.
We provide a liaison between the two land administrations, I guess you
could call them. Again, I know from my
earlier days in the Department of Natural Resources, these community pastures,
since they are very often fairly substantial blocks of land, provide, in some
instances, some very interesting land for potential wildlife studies of
different kinds. There are some moves
afoot, for instance, by the grouse people, who would like to do some controlled
burn or in some way or other take back some of the mature bush that has, poplar
stands that have been allowed to develop in these large community pastures that
no longer provide the habitat for the very desirable species, the grouse and
the chicken. That has come about partly
because of man's interference with nature.
We do not have the raging prairie fires anymore that used
to regularly appear on the landscape.
Our fires are much more controlled, particularly in agro Manitoba. The land, of course, is in itself divided
with natural fire barriers like roads and ditches, so that what used to be a
fairly common prairie phenomenon, have a forest fire go through thousands and
thousands of acres, and that would bring on fresh growth, change the habitat,
and this was all very part of nature.
That is not occurring now again, and there are some moves afoot that I
am aware of, particularly with some of the community pastures, to try to
emulate nature by knocking down or indeed controlled burn, to bring back some
of the more‑‑or try to renovate or rejuvenate the natural habitat
so that it could be more inducive to bird production.
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is in regard to
Crown lands in the Ste. Rose area. I do
not know whether this, maybe the minister would not want to discuss it. I do not know whether it is in court or
not. It is in regard to the Thibert
family. Has this been resolved, or what
has been the result?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised that with
that particular piece of property, Crown land, the individuals involved are in
the midst of a transfer request or hearing.
I am further advised that later on this month, the 25th, to be specific,
of June, a hearing‑‑now, I do not want to overly emphasize: this is not a formal hearing; this is an in‑shop,
in‑house hearing by senior staff of the department. We will be looking at the situation with
respect to that land, and the parties will be informed.
Mr. Gaudry: Some of the concerns that they had expressed
were other farmers bringing cattle out of province. I know we were talking about free trade and
everything else between provinces‑‑[interjection] I believe
so. I was wondering, what are the
policies of Crown Lands in regard to bringing cattle from other areas of the
province or from other provinces?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I kind of indicated a
little earlier to the honourable member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) that there
is a requirement in the act that the applicant, the holder of the lease,
provide the main labour and management and for his use fairly exclusively, but
it is‑‑and I recognize it, I travel the province and I asked the
department certainly to use this with some judiciousness. There are circumstances where the question of
ownership of cattle is a question. When
cattle are brought in, it is sometimes difficult for the branch to determine,
has an actual transfer of ownership occurred or are they in fact simply
pasturing cattle for somebody else, perhaps somebody from out of the province?
There is a requirement, I think, in all these leases that
the operator of the Crown land, if there is some deviation from something like
that, should contact the Crown Lands people.
In most instances, it may be a situation where for economic reasons or
something like that, the lessee holder has less than the optimum cattle on that
land, but our Crown Lands people appreciate being visited and having some idea
of a farm business plan that would, in most instances, satisfy Crown Lands.
We would not act in haste to necessarily change a leasing
arrangement, but the system does not allow for extended abuse of the kind of
thing that I am talking about. If, in
fact, it can be determined‑‑and I am assuming that the department
will be taking just that kind of a hard look at this particular situation‑‑the
original intent of the leases must be followed.
While some leeway may be granted in terms of timing or something like
that, if it can be determined that‑‑and I appreciate that there is
a fairly sizable piece of Crown land involved that the honourable member is
questioning about. I am aware that there
are other adjoining and neighbouring cattle people, ranchers, who are operating
cattle operations and who could perhaps use some of this land. They are making those requests. So we will have to see what occurs on June
25.
* (1510)
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it will be my only
question on Crown Lands. I know
yesterday we were going from various pages here. I had to leave early last night. I had a question in regard to the straw under
Soils and Crops.
On the news the other day, there was money to be made from
straw, it said. It has brought an
international tug of war between Findlay, North Dakota and Elie. A Toronto‑based company is considering
building a plant in Elie to manufacture particle board using straw‑‑it
mentions about all the jobs and everything else‑‑but the Manitoba
government has given the company $23,000 for a feasibility study.
Can the minister tell us if the feasibility study is
finished?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Before the minister's answers, is there leave
then to revert to Soils and Crops for just a few questions? [agreed] Thank you.
Mr. Enns: We had a brief discussion about it the other
evening in your absence, and I do not have any problem in revisiting the
issue. The honourable member will, of
course, appreciate that I have‑‑and I want to declare it‑‑a
very direct personal interest in the proposal, particularly with its potential
of being sited in and around the community of Elie, which, the honourable
member will know, is an aggressive and important part of the constituency of
Lakeside.
The proposals that I had before me at that time‑‑and
I read them into the record. There are a
number of different proposals. The one
that he refers to is the potential of creating particle board out of wheat
straw. There is another very significant
effort being made by another gentleman, a Dr. Wong, who has talked and visited
through a significant number of parts of rural Manitoba about the potential of
making some paper and paper product out of a combination of wheat straws and
flax straws. That gentleman received
fairly significant amounts of money, I think, upwards to $150,000. He is beyond the feasibility study. He is doing researching.
He has made arrangements at a paper plant in Vulcan,
Alberta, where shipments of straw have already taken place to that plant, and
it is being broken down into a pulp.
They had contracted with that paper mill in Vulcan, Alberta, to do trial
runs of paper making from this product.
There are also a number of initiatives that are looking at
straw as a source of energy, compacting it in pellet form, the potential of
using it for various forms of supplying heat energy in different operations.
Of course, this is quite a remarkable turnaround in the
sense that up until now, and traditionally, straw was viewed in all too many
instances as a nuisance, as a waste. Of
course, as 58 farmers experienced this past summer when we ticketed them for
illegally burning straw, it has become more than just a nuisance.
As Minister of Agriculture I would be pleased if we could
end up with a situation where you could add value to the straw. The primary producer can always use
that. It would probably do away with
burning of stubble to a very significant degree in the sense that the straw so
taken off is really the extra straw, the extra residue that sometimes farmers,
even though they know it is not the best farming practice soilwise, feel they
have to burn because of the difficulty to work it into the land. If left just with a stubble, there would be
very little stubble burning in my opinion, and that would be good soil
husbandry and, at the same time, provide some additional dollars for the farmer
and, if a plant like that should be located in a community like Elie, create
some badly needed jobs.
Mr. Gaudry: Where are we as far as negotiations, because
it says here: If the plant does go to
Elie, construction could begin as early as August. Are we that far advanced in the feasibility
study, in negotiation of who is going to get the plant?
Mr. Enns: That question probably would be more
appropriately directed to my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and
Tourism (Mr. Downey), whose shop is actively involved in pursuing these kind of
developments. I am sure our agricultural
representatives in that Elie area are providing all the kind of back‑up
support, technical information as to the amount of acres that are potentially
available for production of straw, the kind of yields that might be available
from that area. Indeed, if it moves to a
point‑‑I know that there is actually a kind of a committee formed‑‑I
would have no doubt that the agricultural people in that area would be helping
to co‑ordinate, helping to pool together the delivery of straw to a plant
should it come to fruition.
My understanding is that this is a long way off the simple
idea and drawing board phase, that a major supplier of the equipment involved,
which happens to come from Germany, is actively in discussion stage. I think some equipment may already have been
purchased. There is the final
determination as to site. Of course, as
a Manitoban I would like to, and I am sure honourable members of the committee
would agree with me that we of course would like to see it be located in
Manitoba.
We would therefore have to‑‑but I take this
opportunity. Mr. Deputy Chairperson is
going to start giving me the sign: top
it off, I am speaking too much. When we
speak, when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) and when my Premier (Mr.
Filmon) speak about the importance of being competitive in a global scale, I do
not know what the minimum wage requirements are in North Dakota, but I bet ours
are considerably higher. I do not know
what the corporate tax structure is in North Dakota, but I bet ours are
considerably higher. I do not know what
other labour laws impact on a development.
That will all come under scrutiny by this firm as they decide where they
should locate.
I do know one thing, the landscape is much the same across
the border in North Dakota. They have
large, vast fields and produce essentially the same crops, you know, wheat,
barley, that we produce over here.
So it really is a question of business climate that could
make that determination. Even if we
impose on ourselves and our employees, we may be prepared to do that. We do not mind paying a higher level of
income tax, considerably higher than anybody else, because we say to ourselves,
well, we have some benefits from that.
We have a good health care system, and we have better other social
services.
Again an income tax rate that is too far out of sync with
our major trading partner like the Americans means that plant operating here in
Manitoba has to pay at a considerably higher level so that the take‑home
pay for those employees are such that he can attract them.
These are the conditions that I am sure are currently being
looked at. I would like to believe the
initiative was started by us quite frankly, and I give full credit to those who
were involved. This kind of was born,
you know, the necessity is said to be the mother of invention or innovation,
and this is a typical case.
* (1520)
When faced with the actual force of law that started making
straw burning illegal and face the kind of year that we had last year, the kind
of difficult harvest conditions which really created a problem for our primary
producers, people really started to think, but there has got to be something we
can do with this excess straw. And lo
and behold, they have gone out and done it.
Whether all of these proposals will come to fruition they likely will
not, but even if just one or two of them make it to a final new development, it
will be a substantial breakthrough.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We are on item 5.(a) Northwest Region (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,985,600‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $633,600‑‑pass.
5.(b) Southwest Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$1,957,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $462,700‑‑pass.
5.(c) Central Region (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits
$2,105,500; (2) Other Expenditures $529,500‑‑pass.
5.(d) Eastern/Interlake Region (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $2,389,200‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $712,500‑‑pass.
5.(e) Agricultural Crown Lands (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,285,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $569,900‑‑pass.
5.(f) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriations ($653,100)‑‑(pass).
Resolution 3.5:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$11,978,700 for Agriculture, Regional Agricultural Services, for the fiscal
year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
We will now move on to item 6. Policy and Economics (a) Administration
(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $116,600.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am joined again by
some staff that I have already introduced:
Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy Mr. Craig Lee; along with Mr. Gordon
MacKenzie, who looks after our marketing, who is the Director of Marketing,
Support Boards; Mr. Greg Fearn, Acting Director of the Program and Policy
Analysis branch for the Department of Agriculture. Who have I got here? Lorne Martin‑‑I am sorry‑‑also
from the Policy branch.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the department
apparently spent quite a bit of time developing the document that is entitled
Vision for the 1990s, and then the following document that came up, Moving
Toward the Vision.
There were several meetings held throughout the province
and a lot of work put into those documents.
Can the minister give us some indication on how much money was spent by
the department? Is there a figure that
can be indicated that was put into‑‑I am not talking about the
printing of the document but the meetings and the developing of that
document. Is there any idea?
I guess what I am looking at is I know that there were some
meetings. There was a meeting at Portage
la Prairie that was held that was a large meeting. I am not looking for specific dollars but
whether there were other meetings that were held with other groups and a length
of time that was spent in developing this document.
Mr. Enns: I would like to think, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson, that what the department has done here, and I certainly commend
them for doing so, is that they view this as part of their ongoing challenge of
providing direction, not only for the department as a whole and the minister,
but as a document that within the department and its various diverse branches
and sections brings together some co‑ordination, you know, some thread
that binds the entire thrust of the services provided by the department to some
specific objectives, to some specific goals that they have formulated as a
result of talking with their many clients, their many people that make up the
agricultural community, whether it is in the value‑added processing
industry, whether it is in the specialty and diverse crops areas or whether it
is in the more traditional red meat area.
Those, the honourable member will find under the different
types of headings in the document. These
are general statements of principle. We
are constantly told that we should be putting much more attention, we should be
focusing on value‑added, we should be focusing on diversification, and so
we have just put it into words as a means that the department can respond to.
I know that critics of my government, although they take
sometimes a less than serious attitude about our commitment to sustainable development,
this government and my Premier in particular takes that very seriously. We have been instructed by the very senior
policy level of this government to develop and build sustainable‑development
concepts and principles into our everyday programming within the department, so
that it is not just a mere buzzword that maybe sounds good at annual
conferences where we hug trees, and, well, I better not get into that category.
We understand now‑‑this may not read well for
the member for Swan River‑‑when we talk about the requirement of
accepting the fact that competitiveness, global competition is there. It is not for us to engage in a philosophical
debate as to the rightness or the wrongness of it, it is there. If we want markets for our products, if we
want to sell our pork, if we want to sell our beef, if we want to sell our
grains, we have to compete, and that is another principle that is in the
document.
You will notice that there is a considerable focus on the
whole question of consumer awareness and the role of the consumer that is of
increasing importance in agriculture. It
is not, quite frankly, good enough for the farm producer to toil away on his
farm and say, this is what I want to grow because I like growing this, and
whether anybody likes it or not, it is not really his business. That is not the way it works anymore.
We are constantly having to adjust farm production through
plant genetics and through research to focus the food production in the area
that the vast majority, usually urban consumers, are asking us to do, whether
it is providing different oilseed products that have more acceptable types of
fat content, whether it is bringing down fat contents or what is deemed to be‑‑although
it is a very faddish kind of thing, one week it is this, and the next week it
is that‑‑but in terms of what should make up from a nutrition point
of view, the basic ingredients of our dairy products, and so forth.
All of these kinds of things are contained in this
document.
* (1530)
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I guess what I was
looking for was, I know that some of the meetings were‑‑and I think
about the Gate to Plate one, they were invitational meetings and a few of the
other ones were invitational meetings, and I was looking for what the department
has done‑‑whether there were any additional meetings besides the
specific organized meetings that were quite highly publicized‑‑to
reach more of the grassroots people on these issues.
I want to comment on some of the things that the minister said. The minister said the farmer no longer can
grow just what he wants. I do not
believe farmers ever have grown just what they want for the sake of growing it. Farmers are business people and they may grow
one year a product that there is no market for, but certainly it is a matter of
their livelihood and putting food on their table and they are going to adapt or
change. They always have and they always
will. It is not a direction that this
government has taken or the global market has taken farmers. Farmers know, and I give them a lot more
credit than just growing what they want.
They know that they are trying to make a living.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
The minister talked about sustainable development, and
certainly a sustainable development in the rural area is very important, and
those are some of the things that we continue to remind this government
of. We want development in the rural
area. We want the environment to be
protected. We want the soil to be protected,
whether it be in growing crops, whether it be in raising cattle or hogs or
whatever. We want to see long‑term
sustainability. The minister has made
this comment several times, implying that we do not support economic
development in rural Manitoba. That is
not true.
When we ask questions about what direction the government
is going in as far as protecting the soil, protecting the water tables, that
should not be taken as negative. I think
that it is our job as opposition members, as members representing people in
rural Manitoba, to see that the environment is protected so that future
generations can continue on the path of making a living in rural Manitoba in a
healthy environment as they have in the past.
So I do not think that the minister should take it as negative. I think that we all want a sustainable
environment, and we want to see agriculture proceed in such a way that it will
be a benefit and will protect the rural community and allow it to develop and
have the extra economic growth there that we need very much.
Back to the question of whether there was input from‑‑consultation
and opportunity for the average or the ordinary, I am not sure which the right
word would be, if there was any input from people across the province besides
the specific meetings that I referred to at Portage, which were the Gate to
Plate Conference, and those kinds of meetings that were organized for people to
have input. I am looking for how the
department reached out to the average Manitoban for their views when they were
developing this vision.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know
whether the honourable member has before her‑‑this was the original
document that was prepared for the start of the '90s. I am sure she has it in her file some place. What we have here really and will continue to
have as we move along through the '90s is a kind of a report card about how we
are living up to and meeting some of the original challenges that my
predecessor in the Department of Agriculture produced for the '90s in this
Vision statement, if you like, and it is important to note the extensive
partners, if you like, strategic partners, in the documents.
That includes all kinds of associations: Canadian Seed Growers' Association; Canadian Special
Crops Association; Eastern Manitoba Holstein Club, for the dairy input;
Keystone Vegetable Producers' Association, of course; soil conversation
organizations; Manitoba Sheep Association; Manitoba Rural Youth Organization.
Now, in addition to that, in the regular course of the
operations of the department, in our various forums, particularly in our farm
management courses, we have a host of marketing clubs throughout the
province. We use all these occasions to
do precisely what the member for Swan River is‑‑to talk to real
producers, to talk to ordinary, everyday producers, as the member calls
for. But equally important to us is to
co‑ordinate all of that thinking in with the processing and with the
consumers, and that maybe is the important element of this document.
We do not look at food production as stopping at the farm
gate. The member refers to the Gate to
Plate forum that was held at Portage. It
was precisely to bring a greater understanding on the part of the producer, on
the part of the farmer, that producing that food product does not just end at
his gate, that he has to have some understanding of following it all the way
down through the retailer down to the consumer, and then also we begin to look
at our whole agricultural industry. We
are part of the food supply system, somewhat differently than perhaps in the
past.
What the documents and subsequent documents with respect to
this initial Vision document are, in fact, as my deputy points out, you know, a
report card as to how the department, how Manitoba Agriculture is meeting some
of these visions and objectives, if you like, goal posts, signs, whatever
terminology you want to use, that we feel are the appropriate ones for
agriculture and food production in the 1990s.
Ms. Wowchuk: I thank the minister for that answer, and I
will move on to a few more questions that I have in the area. We are hoping to finish up the department
today, so if we could just move, cover a few other areas off, then we will be
able to‑‑at least for my part, we would like to pass the
department. So, if we could get through
a few of them, if the minister would bear with us, moving quickly through a few
of the issues, then we would be able to pass the department.
I want to touch on a few of the‑‑particularly
The Farm Lands Ownership Act at this time.
I want to ask what has been happening.
Last year, we raised the matter that it appeared that many more pieces
of property were being approved for sale to foreign owners, and, in fact, very
few were being rejected. The previous
minister had indicated that things had been maybe a bit lax at the board and
that there were going to be some changes in the structure of members on the
board. Can the minister give some
indication, have there been changes in the Farm Lands Ownership Board? At the same time, have there been many
applicants, is it a pattern that most of the applications that are being made
now are being approved, and that we are having an increase in the number of
properties that are being sold to foreign owners?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
that there is no fundamental change occurring.
For her information, in the year '92‑93, the board dealt with 243
applications for exemptions, of which 238 were approved and five were denied. This past year, in '93, much in the same
order, 263 applications for exemption were received and a total of 260 were
approved, only three being denied.
I am advised that the fact that so many of the applications
are being approved does not designate any fundamental change in policy. People who are not eligible simply are not
applying. What many of these
applications involve are very often children passing on the land to children,
who need to be reviewed by the board because they may not be residents of
Manitoba.
* (1540)
It is certainly our intention to enable that to happen and
exemptions occur. I have personal
difficulty with this act. The member was
not in the House when it was passed. I
suppose it is fair to say that we have some ongoing philosophical troubles with
this act. This act was brought in at the
time when there was a very heightened degree of interest by foreigners in
Canadian farmland and it was passed.
My experience has been that the ebbs and flows over
different time spans on the Canadian scene, the farmland never leaves our fair
province, but there are restrictions that in my judgment create some problems
for us here in Canada. It is a subject
matter, for instance, that has come up at Premiers' conferences as being one of
the trade barriers with interprovincial trade.
I find it unacceptable.
I only have two sons; I would like to leave my farm to my sons. I cannot, because of this act, because they
choose to live in British Columbia and in Ontario. Unless they come to this board and apply for
an exemption, and I think that is nonsense that I, as a Canadian, born and
raised in this country, have to come to a board of people who are appointed,
that I may not necessarily agree with and seek their permission to leave my farm
to my two sons. I think that is
nonsense, but that is a personal preference.
I am told that many of the exemptions that make up these
totals are these kind of exemptions. An
operation like Ducks Unlimited buys some land for the purpose of wetland development. They, because they are not farm operation,
have to come to this board to seek an exemption, which is fine. I know we do that, but I ask myself, why do
we clutter up our lives with this kind of additional red tape and bureaucracy,
with all due respect to my bureaucrats here.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess we
have to look back at the time when the act was brought in. As the minister has indicated, I was not
around at the time, so we will have to look at it. As I have been told by other people, there
were some very good debates on the issue.
The minister indicates that the majority of the applicants
are from family members. However, in my
constituency I have had brought to my attention, or had people raise to me, that
in fact the land that is being transferred is not being transferred to
families, and that it is people outside the country who are buying the
land. That is causing some concern for
farmers in the area who would want to buy the land, and perhaps the reason that
it is sold to another owner is people outside the country might have access to
more money than some of these young farmers who are getting started. This has been brought to my attention by some
of the young farmers in the area. I ask
the minister, of those 260 pieces of property that were approved, how many of
them went to foreign owners? Is that
possible to separate?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
that the specific incident that the member draws our attention to was a
situation where these American owners had land there prior to the passing of
this legislation, which in fact was grandfathered under the legislation. So although the appeal for some‑‑and
it is apparently the intention of a son or something like that to come and farm
there, whether that happens or not.
But the additional acquisition of land that she
specifically refers to was initially denied by the board, but upon appeal was‑‑and
the presentation was reviewed and granted on the basis that this was in the
community's interests. It would provide
for the eventual farming base of the son, at least so the story went to the
appeal board, and it was granted for this occasion. It is one of the, one or the only, parcels of
land that was provided that kind of an exemption in the exemptions here that we
speak of.
Ms. Wowchuk: So the minister is indicating that it was
only the‑‑there were two deals in the Swan River area. It was only those two deals that were of
these 260 applicants that went to a foreign owner out of the country. The rest were other family members within
Canada.
Mr. Enns: I am advised, as far as senior staff is aware
of, that that is the case, yes.
Ms. Wowchuk: We will leave that one for now. Just on it, I guess with that particular
issue the reason there was concern by people in the community is that this land
was being bought up, and there is no family moving in to operate it. It would have been preferable for the economy
of the rural area to have the land go to another family that would live in the
area and contribute to the economy. That
was where, perhaps, we differ in our opinions on how the land was sold, but we
will leave it at that. If further issues
like that arise then we will discuss it with the board.
* (1550)
The other area that comes under the Boards and Commissions
is the Milk Prices Review Commission, but there has been a constituent who is
concerned with the discrepancy in milk pricing across the province and suggests
that there should be more equalization, that rural people are paying too high a
price for milk. That makes a little bit
of sense. The milk is produced in rural
Manitoba and it ends up being a cheaper price for the people in the city and a
higher price for rural Manitobans. I do
not know how it can be addressed, but I bring that to the Milk Prices Review
Commission's attention and ask whether there is anything that can be done or
whether any consideration is being given to that matter which I know has been
brought to the commission's attention.
Mr. Enns: I am advised that the department has, in
fact, written to and contacted directly an individual in the Swan River area
that has registered a concern or complaint in this regard, and we will be
meeting with him in the next little short while. There are, you know, certain parameters of
taking freight and distances and minimum‑‑there are no minimums, it
is only maximum price where competition is a factor. No doubt that has a role to play in terms of
the pricing of products.
I understand the situation is such that it is somewhat
priced higher in Swan River than the product price across the border, maybe in
Saskatchewan, and I understand the level of concern. But I have asked Mr. MacKenzie and he tells
me that people from the Boards and Commissions shop will be discussing this
issue directly with the complainant.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister mentioned that there is no
minimum pricing on milk, and that minimum pricing was removed just in the last
few years. Is that one of the things
that has a bearing on the variation in prices, and is that one of the reasons
that there is a difference of price in some of the communities? I am asking for clarification because I do
not quite understand why there is such a difference in price.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, all members
will of course recall that there are only maximums set, I believe. There were minimums and they have been
removed, is my understanding. Is that
not correct? Yes, senior staff
acknowledge that is in fact the case.
And the honourable member will recall at that time there was
considerable controversy about it.
We had one particularly aggressive retailer here in the
city of Winnipeg by the name of Joe Cantor that made for great headline news
and discussions with our radio talk‑show hosts, Peter Warren and the
likes of that. He persisted in his
policy of believing that he ought to be able to use milk as a loss leader, I
suppose, in his promotional efforts for his store, and there was genuine concern
being expressed by different interests in that area that the minimum pricing
structure regulations ought to be maintained, for whatever reasons.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
I do not dodge the issues, but I was not Minister of
Agriculture at the time. The minimum pricing
regulation was in fact dropped, and that allows far greater variation of milk
prices across the province. When you
couple that together with some of the regulations that are in effect with
respect to some of the arrangements that I have with the Boards and Commissions
in terms of mileage that take into account freight costs, that take into
account overall maximums that are allowed, because they are tied directly to
the whole structure about the setting of prices for the product, the setting of
prices for what the producer, the dairy farmer receives, the regulation of
course is intact.
With the minimum regulation drop, the member and customers
can expect a variation of milk prices in different parts of the province. I may just indicate to members of the
committee that there have been no requests from the industry that we have
received in the department in the past year to reintroducing the minimum price
control regulation. It seems to be
reasonably well received.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, getting back to the
specific individual who wrote to the commission from Swan River, that would
appear to be part of the problem.
Because he is a smaller operator, he is not purchasing at the same price
as people who are purchasing in volume and he is not able to sell at the same
price as them because the minimum price has been removed. The larger operations can sell below him and
in fact it is true, there is an impact by the removal of minimum prices on some
of the smaller stores such as corner stores who only buy in small volume.
Mr. Enns: I am advised that that situation really was
in place with the minimum regulation in place.
There was always a volume discount available to the volume purchaser of
the product. It may not have been to the
same extent, but certainly that was in place.
I cannot offer any further advice to her constituent in this regard
other than to repeat the obvious that that is how the milk drop droppeth or the
cookie crumbles or some such other thing.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will take that
advice back to my constituent if it is accurate that there was a discounting
price before. I had not researched that,
but that was not the information that he had provided for me. He had indicated that‑‑
Mr. Enns: I will further just undertake to ask senior
staff to provide the honourable member with some report or correspondence in
the outcome of having had a chat with the party involved. It may not be possible for us to resolve the
issue, but I think everybody is deserving of the fullest explanation of how the
rules and how the regulations apply.
Ms. Wowchuk: I will look for that information. I in fact have a copy of the letter that went
to the corner store in Swan River.
Mr. Enns: I have you on my list. You never will be missed.
Ms. Wowchuk: Well, thank you very much and if you will
keep me on your other mailing lists for information, I will have to ask far
less questions than I have to ask right now.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I want to ask the minister about the
Agriculture Producers' Certification Agency.
I know that many of the farm organizations have been lobbying the
minister to change the act to allow for an up‑front checkoff on
commodities and that has created a lot of discussion. I want to ask the minister what direction is
he going in this. Is he bending to the
farm organizations that are looking to have this act reopened or is it going to
remain as is now?
Mr. Enns: Yes, I have had considerable representation
made to me for consideration of changes, amendments to the act. I want to further indicate to members of the
committee that the recommendations for legislation in this general area is not
exclusive to the organization that she refers to, the Keystone Agricultural
Producers' organization.
There have also been representations from different
commodity groups. Principally the canola
growers have requested a separate checkoff, if you like. There have been one or two other groups that
have also requested‑‑I stand to be corrected. It is the canola organization, the only
organization that has made a formal kind of request of the department and
visited in my office shortly after I came into the ministry. I have, quite frankly, not resolved the
issue. I think the honourable member
realizes some controversy surrounds it, particularly now I am speaking about
changing or opening the act for the farm organization, for the Keystone
organization.
I have strong general support for these kind of
levies. I was a strong supporter of
providing necessary legislation for the cattlemens' association checkoff. I prefer to have, and I see in most
instances, an option clause that makes it less mandatory where a person with a
conviction does not wish to be part of that organization or contribute to that
organization can do so by specifically writing in to the organization and then
receiving a refund for any levies taken off that party.
* (1600)
I feel that it is important and it serves the welfare of agriculture
to have strong farm organizations, or strong commodity organizations, but I
just had not‑‑you know, as the member knows, there are several
different directions going on the Keystone question. I have indicated to them that I would not be
making any changes to the legislation during this coming session.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, indeed it is a very
complicated situation that could result in a change of legislation.
With the method that is being proposed with the checkoff at
elevators, and that has not proven to be successful with Keystone, many people
are opting out. I think that what is
being proposed by the canola growers could also end up being cumbersome with
having to check off through the point of sale.
I am sure that there will have to be a lot of consideration
given before there is any change made to the legislation, and I appreciate
knowing that there will not be any new changes made during this session or
during this year.
On the Boards and Commissions, we look at the number of
staff years, and there is a reduction. I
look at the note, and some of those reductions are on the Farm Lands Ownership
Board, and there has been a combining of positions. What positions are eliminated? What is going to be the impact of the board's
operation of having those positions eliminated?
Mr. Enns: What was brought to my attention, as we were
developing the set of Estimates for the coming year, was that in both of these
two operations, the Mediation Board, the level of work has considerably
decreased. That is a welcome sign, which
is my hope that the need for that board would disappear and that we could say
farm families in Manitoba are not getting themselves or facing the kind of
financial problems that there was the original reason for establishing both our
Manitoba board by the previous administration and the federal board.
Also, the level of work activity, after an initial flurry,
also dropped off considerably at the Farm Lands Ownership Board and was dealing
essentially with a fairly mundane kind of applications that did not require a
great deal of administrative work. So it
was my decision, partly for the simple reasons of prudent use of dollars and
under the pressures of budget restraint, to amalgamate those two boards.
What we have done, in effect, is the farm members of the
board of directors who were on the Farm Lands Ownership Board, their terms had
all expired, and I was faced with the decision of having to either reappoint
them. I chose rather to thank them and
in fact suspend the entire board, and have appointed members of the Mediation
Board as the new members for the Farm Lands Ownership Board. That has resulted in a savings of staff, of
secretarial staff. There is one major
person who was retired, Mr. Osborne, and the amalgamation of the functions of
those two boards, the Farm Lands Ownership Board with the Mediation Board plus
the staff reduction that I just referred to result in the savings that you see.
Ms. Wowchuk: To look at, that seems like a very reasonable
move, and I commend the minister for taking that move. If there are boards that are in existence
that are not having any role to play, certainly that would be a good move. The indication is that the Farm Mediation
Board meets about 12 times a year. Is this
going to mean with the Farm Lands Ownership Board, with the combination of it,
is it going to mean additional meetings, or is it going to mean that they will
all be able to be co‑ordinated at the same time?
Mr. Enns: I have asked them, and knowing the personnel
on the board, they will be using the one coming together for the one purpose,
to do the business of both boards at one meeting. They will possibly be doing some longer hours
when they have these meetings, but the savings will be there.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we look forward to
hearing the results of the combination of that board.
Speaking of the Farm Mediation Board, the minister has
indicated that there is a drop in applications, and that seems reasonable,
considering that the revenues of some farms have increased somewhat, and
probably most farmers who were in difficulty had gone to foreclosure or written
down their operations over the past years, when the difficulties were far more
serious than they are right now.
Can the minister indicate how many applications there were
in the past year under the farm lands protection act, and how many of those
resulted in foreclosure?
Mr. Enns: Allow me just to have the privilege of
introducing another senior staff member, Mr. Henry Nelson, Executive Director
of the Manitoba Mediation Board, who joins us at the table. He will be again providing some service, I
take it, to both boards in again, I think, a wise coming together of available
resources to still provide the service, still look after the requirements of
the legislation, but to do so in a more efficient manner.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have indicated earlier through
the Manitoba Agricultural Credit Corporation's discussion during our Estimates that
the board dealt with a total of 87 situations this year. That, for instance, compares to 161 last year
and 194 the year before, 300 the year before that. So that shows you the very dramatic decline
which I think we talked about a bit the last time. Things are looking brighter on the farm and on
the landscape and that is being reflected by these figures.
* (1610)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 6.(a) Administration (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $116,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $23,300‑‑pass.
6.(b) Economics (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $804,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $171,000‑‑pass.
6.(c) Boards and Commissions Support Services (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $247,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$192,900‑‑pass.
6.(d) Agricultural Research ‑ Grant to the University
of Manitoba $784,000.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we talked about the
type of research that was being done in the various regions in southern
Manitoba with various crops and irrigation under the federal‑provincial
agreement. Can the minister give us some
indication of how much financial support goes to the Glenella research
station? What types of projects are
being researched there?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised that we
do not have that kind of information. We
provide this grant more or less as a block grant to the faculty of agriculture
as our support to the faculty. I suppose
it is obtainable from the university sources, what it was, but I do not have
that information here.
Allow me just to take a moment to say that it is with
considerable pride and considerable satisfaction‑‑
Ms. Wowchuk: I was just going to commend you.
Mr. Enns: Okay, I will let you do that.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: He wants it on the record, Rosann.
Ms. Wowchuk: Go right ahead with your answer.
Mr. Enns: I was saying that those who are familiar with
the facilities at the faculty of agriculture will realize that they were in
sore need of not just repair, but replacement.
They were literally falling apart.
It is just not acceptable that we were asking our agricultural grads,
both in the degree course and the diploma course, not to speak of the staff and
the research, to work under those conditions.
It was with some considerable pleasure that this little
minister was instrumental in getting a $6.75 million restoration program for
the faculty of agriculture. I
acknowledge that with the support of the federal government and the
infrastructure program, the province and the university, which has had for a
considerable time a large bequest. A
family by the name of Newman had left a bequest of in excess of a million
dollars for that precise purpose. It had
difficulty in getting the priority rating on the campus, and we were able to
push that together. That will be a
refurbishing, a major rededication of the importance of agriculture at the
campus, and we will continue to have a flow of well‑trained, well‑educated
people not just to service themselves in various forms of occupations, but to
continue to be able to provide a stream of support staff in the Department of
Agriculture. It does give me great
satisfaction that has happened this time.
Ms. Wowchuk: Indeed, I am very pleased also to have the
funds dedicated to refurbishing and rebuilding the buildings within the
Department of Agriculture, a very important industry in our province. I am sure this will take some time, but I
hope that when the buildings are done that‑‑
Point of Order
Mr. Enns: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
will you request the rabble at the end of the table to cease and desist so that
we can continue this intellectual discourse with my honourable colleague from
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) in a more civilized manner?
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I want to thank the minister for that.
Could I ask the honourable members wanting to carry on a
conversation to do so in the halls so we can hear each other think at this end
of the table.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): The
point of order is that it seems like there is a private dialogue going on
between the critic and the minister. The
people are discriminated at this end; we cannot hear properly. We have to keep checking to see whether we‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. If he wants to hear, there is
a hearing piece at the end of the table that he can use.
* * *
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, agriculture is an
important industry in the province, and I am pleased to see that the research
centre will be extended and improved in standards. I am sure it will attract many more people to
do their research here in Manitoba.
I hope that, when the building is completed, this
government, or whichever government is in power, will find it reasonable to add
research funds because I know this government has cut back on research
funds. To have a building improved, and
if we hope to do the research that is necessary, I hope we will also see those
funds go into research to go along with this building. Although it is great to have the building
improved, we also have to have the funds along with it to do the research in
this province, which is very important to not only our economy but the economy of
the country.
Mr. Enns: I thank the honourable member for Swan River
for those comments. I do want to
indicate to her that recently in attending the graduating classes of the
diploma students this year, Dean Elliot reported that in both the degree courses
and in the diploma courses, enrollment is rising this year, and that kind of
reverses a trend that was going the other way in the past. So I think that kind of all augurs well with
the kind of new look that the faculty of agriculture will be receiving in the
next few years.
There were comments about maintaining the levels of
support, I heartily endorse and agree with.
Our problem is we have to sometimes reassign some of the monies that are
flowing to that centre in questionable basket weaving, social engineering‑tinkering courses into the fundamentals of life like
agriculture, and we would have the necessary monies that that faculty deserves.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
6.(e) Manitoba Farm Mediation Board (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $201,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $403,100‑‑pass.
6.(f) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriations ($94,300)‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.6:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$2,850,600 for Agriculture for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1995‑‑pass.
Item 3.8. Income Insurance and Support Program (a)
Administration $179,900.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have touched on
some of the funds from the stabilization program earlier on in other lines‑‑we
discussed the Tripartite Cattle Stabilization program‑‑and the
minister had indicated that some of those funds that would be saved by the
province would be going to an industrial development fund. But there are other funds, and I know that
the cattle producers have indicated that they are interested in taking part in
the NISA program or in the new program that is being designed.
I want to ask the minister at what stage that is. Are the cattle producers going to be able to
participate in the existing NISA program, or are they going to have to wait
until the new program is designed? Also,
at the same time, what is the plan as to what funds that are being saved by the
province will be put in a start‑up for cattle producers? As I understand, this is something that the
department is looking at, to have some incentive for the cattle producers to
get into the NISA program. So can the
minister give us an overview of what is happening with those funds, and also I
would imagine, if the same plan is in place for hog producers, for the Hog
Stabilization fund?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, staff advises me that
cattle and hogs, treating those two items, in the first instance, have requested
that they be part of a national program, across‑Canada type of
program. Understandably, that maintains
level playing fields and places equal amounts of responsibility in all
jurisdictions to level support for that industry. Those decisions really are being moved ahead
and will likely come to some decision making in a month's time at the
Agriculture ministers meeting here in Winnipeg that I have several times
referred to. The federal minister Mr.
Goodale is working hard to that end.
* (1620)
We have a large committee of producers and staff people
from all provinces working towards that end.
That is what we call the national safety net program, and they have
requested all of us, cattle and hogs, to be included in an enhanced or in a
NISA type program, eligible for the taxation year '94, for this year. However, there would be no requirement for
funds flowing, that is, from us in the province, until the next budget year of
'95. So there is no provision made for
that in these sets of Estimates.
First of all, we do not know precisely the level, and as I
have indicated earlier, I was not in a position to simply park money while we
come to that decision. There were too
many other demands, the Ministry of Finance, all I could do was place the
caveat on the fact that although it looks like a substantial savings if she
looks on this line from last year, $1.4 million to the $150,000 this year, that
in fact was given back to Finance for redistribution in the other priorities of
government.
The government is well aware, however, that when we become
full participants in the national plan as devised by the provinces and the
federal government, that amount will of course be considerably different. In the meantime, as I referred to earlier, we
have agreed to putting some of the money that we had heretofore spent on the
beef industry's behalf into that industry, industrial development proposal, and
that is a three‑year commitment by Manitoba: $150,000 the first year, $208,000 for the
following two years, for a total of some slightly in excess of a half‑million
dollars.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister has
indicated that he has made a commitment to an industrial development fund for
the beef industry, and other provinces have made commitments, I understand, to
a pork industrial development fund or some sort of fund. Are there any plans or any lobbying to commit
funds for a pork industrial development fund from the beef stabilization
program?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my understanding is
that only Saskatchewan has specifically opted to take virtually all of their
dollars that prior went to support under the tripartite support programs to the
hog industry into some form of an industry development fund. As I think I may have alluded to earlier,
that ought to be paid some attention to by us here in Manitoba in terms of the
ability that that gives the Saskatchewan government to directly intervene in
the search for and the enticement and luring of an additional hog‑processing
facility to Saskatchewan. There is no
question about it that there is a very aggressive role being played by the
Saskatchewan Ministry of Agriculture, supported totally by the government,
Premier Romanow, to substantially increase Saskatchewan hog production.
The other provinces have all opted to use, and I am now
speaking for hogs, for the NISA type program, and they are pressuring their
governments to use the monies that were allocated this year for the program as
a kind of a prepayment into the NISA accounts.
We have not made that decision here in Manitoba. We have made the decision to participate for
the following nine months at a level‑‑I am advised that those
decisions have not been made yet, we are still in negotiations with them.
Ms. Wowchuk: So there still is the possibility then that
some of those funds could be used to set up NISA accounts for the hog
producers, as has been done in other provinces?
Mr. Enns: Yes, it is a challenge to the staff to merge
these programs together, because we do have some 2,069, which I would suspect
represents a very significant portion of the hog producers in Manitoba who are
already enrolled in the NISA program for grain.
So this would not be a new concept for them. They are looking for us to roll in similar
kinds of benefits for their hog portion of their farming enterprise. Those discussions are underway.
They are, of course, the same situation with the cattle
producers that are looking to come into a NISA type program, and, quite
frankly, I have to leave it on the record.
It will be a major issue for myself, as Minister of Agriculture, to see
just what kind of resources there will be available in the overall monies
available to this government to what level we can participate. That is why at this juncture I have not been
authorized or I have not got the clear signals from my government as to what
level we can support future safety net programs.
Ms. Wowchuk: I would just like a little bit of
clarification on the Hog and Cattle Stabilization programs. The government is not going to have to put
money in this year, but am I correct in assuming that there is a pool of money,
a surplus of money that has been left in both the Cattle Stabilization and in
the Hog Stabilization programs, and if that is accurate, does this government
have any influence on how that money that is in a surplus is distributed? Can the minister give any indication on the
amounts of money and what will happen to it, the surplus accounts?
Mr. Enns: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised
that essentially when these programs are winding up, any surplus accounts
accruing as a result of producer contributions, in fact, are returned to the
producers. The surplus accounts, you
know, paid by governments, return to governments.
There is, of course, a strong belief out there among the
producers that governments maintain their commitment of dollars at the same
support levels as represented by these programs. That really never was in the principle of the
programs. We matched not to the maximum
amount that government may have provided dollars but to the need, to the draw,
to the claims of the given year.
Then there are some of the smaller accounts which were left
with deficits. The white bean account
was left with, for instance, a $2,481,000 deficit. The other‑coloured beans‑‑white
beans, two million; coloured $453,000 deficit.
Kidney and cranberry had a very small deficit‑‑pardon me,
that is a surplus account, so on these three little programs, there is just
about a $3‑million deficit, a $2,931,000 deficit.
On the other hand, in the cattle tripartite support
program, there was a $136,000 deficit with the slaughter cattle, an $860,000
surplus in the feeder account and a $2,796,000 surplus in the cow‑calf
account, so that the Cattle Stabilization fund, as terminated on December 31,
'93, had a surplus situation of $3,520,000.
* (1630)
The lamb situation is somewhat different. It has a deficit fund of some $134,000. In the hog situation, we end up with, without
getting too extended, a total surplus of $1,841,000. Then there are a few other support programs
that are still carrying on. The sugar
beets has another year to advance, but that gives the member some indication of
the kind of dollars that are available.
The surpluses that I am reading out are the government
surpluses. The member will recall these
are tripartite support programs which generally called for just about equal
support from the three partners: the
producer themselves, the provincial governments and the federal governments. So these numbers that I read out that
represent the government share of the surplus would be just about identical to
those for the other two partners, including the producer.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, if I read the
minister's comments correctly, the producer's share, which is in the cattle
industry, approximately $3.5 million, will be returned to the producers. It is the hope of the producers that the
government's shares, an additional close to $7 million, the producers feel that
because that money was designated for them, for their programs, that that
should go back into some sort of account for them and perhaps redistributed
through the NISA program or whatever program is set up for them. There appears to be some difference of
opinion as to how much of that fund should then be reimbursed to the producers.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think the member
has correctly captured the essence of where we stand, that there is a
determination yet to be made by government as to the scale of the program and
the level to which we will support. I
want to say as strong as I can as Minister of Agriculture for the province of
Manitoba, I will do everything I can to ensure that Manitoba cattle producers are
supported in the same level as other producers across the country.
As I indicated initially when we started this discussion,
there is a general request, both in cattle and hogs, that we work towards a
national program, that the level of support be the same in Quebec or in Alberta
or Saskatchewan as it is anywhere else in the country. It will be my challenge, quite frankly, as
minister, to persuade my colleagues that whatever that level is at, that
Manitoba is a full participant in that support program.
Ms. Wowchuk: I believe the minister indicated that this
will be a subject of discussion at the Agriculture ministers' conference. I would encourage the minister to work
towards having a national program where farmers across the country are treated
equally, rather than a varying program for each province. I think that by working towards a national
program, we will avoid some of the difficulties that we have seen in other
programs.
We have talked about the cattle and the beef stabilization
program and we see those programs being phased out. We see that the sugar program and the honey
program, there is an increased amount of funds.
Those programs are not coming to an end, or how long will they be in
place? What is the reason for an
increase in that? Is it more
participation, or what is happening here?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am advised that the
honey producers are right at this particular time making a decision among
themselves as to whether or not they wish to terminate the program or carry on. My guess would be that they likely will come
to a decision much as some of the other commodity groups that move out of the
old programs of support and position themselves to be in a program, not unlike
some of the other commodity groups, in some form of NISA or enhanced NISA‑type
program.
The reasons for the sugar beet allocation being somewhat
higher is because last year the new agreement had not been‑‑the
support program had not been formally in place by the time the Estimates were
printed. They are now in place. They are working and reflect a somewhat
higher rate of support, and that is what accounts for the increase in the
appropriation here.
Ms. Wowchuk: So I take it then that that means, although
it was estimated in the last year that $350,000 would be spent for the sugar
stabilization program, that was an underestimation and a lot more than that was
spent.
Mr. Enns: There was an additional level of support
supplied by the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism over and above the
350 that was provided by this department to bring that to that level as part of
the deal that was arrived at to secure the ongoing operation and safeguard the
jobs of the Manitoba Sugar Company.
Ms. Wowchuk: I am sorry, I did not hear the minister. He had said that additional money came from
I, T and T to top up to the $350,000 level?
Okay. Thank you.
I am sure that I have missed the section that I am supposed
to have asked this question, but since we are talking about sugar‑‑it
has nothing to do with the stabilization program, but I hope the minister will
bear with me.
I would like to ask whether any attempts‑‑and I
should have asked this under Policy, I realize that‑‑have been made
to pursue a national sugar policy. This
is something that sugar beet growers have been asking for, but we have not seen
or heard any announcements or any activity.
Is the department pursuing any activity in that direction to give long‑term
security to the sugar producers?
Mr. Enns: I want to tell the honourable member that I
can recall 27, 28 years ago that I had occasion at a ministers of Agriculture
meeting in Ottawa to speak in support of that very same proposal, because I
happen to hold a personal belief that I think a commodity like sugar, which can
be very volatile in its price where for some reasons international
interruptions in the trade takes place, there is I think‑‑it would
be good prudent policy to have, for instance, the capacity of producing 25
percent of our own sugar requirements.
That would give us a cushion, if you like, for this commodity.
* (1640)
However, over the intervening years we have lost a
considerable amount of our sugar industry.
Some of the plants in Quebec, some of the plants in Ontario have been
reduced to where we now only have two beet‑producing sugar plants, one in
Alberta and one in Manitoba here. The
vast majority, 90 percent or in that order, of sugar comes to us off shore from
cane sugar supplies.
The issue was looked at and reviewed, I am advised by
staff, two years ago when we looked at the whole question of the levels of
support for the sugar industry including asking that question: Should we have a national sugar policy? The proponents, as represented by the
processors and consumer interests, won the day.
They viewed that an imposition of a kind of national sugar policy would
reflect negatively on sugar which comes to us, by and large, from more cheaper
sources, cane, though those sources dry up on certain occasions.
Certainly when there was a sudden shift from the sugar supplies
that a country like Cuba provided, a major source of sugar for the United
States and for Canada, when they made just a sudden policy shift to tie up all
their sugar production with the Soviet Union for their own reasons in exchange
for energy, for oil, that dislocated sugar markets and we had sugar prices
increasing by tenfold in a very short space of time. I, for these reasons, tend to support the
concept of a kind of national sugar policy.
I am not saying that we should not deny ourselves our processors from
the sugar that is available to us off shore from cane for less dollars. We have to trade. We trade other goods with those countries;
those countries have to live by trade.
My position at that time was the position that I still
hold. If we determine that it is in the
interests of the country, Canada, to have a capacity to produce X number
percent, 15 percent, 10 percent, 18 percent of our domestic needs of sugar,
then any support prices should be tied to that figure and not above that. We should not be, you know, supporting‑‑but
if we could make that kind of a national determination. My feeling is that time has passed for those
kinds of visionary statements, visionary policies with respect to the future
for the sugar industry, and we will do our best to maintain what we have.
Quite frankly, some of the more encouraging signs of sugar
production increases would be to look harder at closer association with some of
the owner‑owned sugar co‑op producers just immediately across the
border that express some interest in a closer working relationship with our
sugar beet producers. Whether or not
anything will come of that, that remains to be seen.
Again, it does disturb me, I would like to see‑‑we
have some increased sugar. We were
hoping to plant 30,000 acres into sugar beets this year. My understanding is that despite the labour
difficulties, upwards of 28,000 have actually been planted. Across the line in the state of North Dakota
they plant 400,000 acres into sugar beets and get a better price. The farm producer gets $78 Canadian for sugar
beets; our farmer gets $38 for our sugar beets.
So I ask myself, there ought to be some opportunities there
that perhaps need to be investigated. I
want to say this with the greatest respect to Rogers' sugar, who is the owner
of our sugar company, but they are also very major importers of cane sugar into
the Canadian market, it is not always a truism that the corporate or the
company's interest is necessarily the interest of the province or of the producer.
Ms. Wowchuk: The minister mentioned the importance of the
sugar industry, and certainly there was a risk this spring that because the
company chose to lock out the workers from the plant, even though the workers
were quite prepared to work and be sure that the crop went in, the company
chose to lock them out, and because of that dispute, there was a risk that we
might lose the industry. I know that
growers in southern Manitoba have indicated that they are looking at
establishing a processing plant that is a co‑operative‑owned plant,
similar to what the minister has talked about across the lines.
I wonder whether the department is doing any work with
those producers, whether any research is being done on the viability of such an
operation and whether any funds, if not from the Department of Agriculture,
from other parts of government are being set aside to research the possibility
of another processing plant for sugar beets in this province.
Mr. Enns: It is only a short week or 10 days ago that
the sugar beet growers had a meeting in my office with myself and several other
members of the government, including my colleague, Mr. Penner, who himself is a
sugar beet grower and represents a considerable number of sugar beet growers in
that southern part of the province.
They have made a specific request. I have not as yet transmitted it to my senior
staff in a formal way, that we assist them in drawing up a kind of application
to perhaps the REDI program for modest support to do precisely what the member
for Swan River asks, that we look at some of the economics at play and to do
some investigation about how the sugar beet runs across the line, to look at
the question of whether or not the concept of a grower‑owned, close to
the same as a co‑op, could be feasible for us.
In other words, a feasibility program of the kind that the
member asks will be done. We will
support the growers in pursuing this, but I want to make it very clear, these
are just very preliminary and ought not to be taken out of context. I hope that the company that we have, with
the 150 employees, mushrooms up to over 200 employees when they are going full
swing in the winter months processing the beets, and that they come to an
equitable solution of their labour problems.
They are talking about an extended contract of upwards to
nine or 10 years which guarantees no lockouts and a no‑strike kind of
situation. That is, quite frankly, what
the sugar beet industry requires, is stability, and then we will see our
acreages increase.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 8. Income Insurance and Support Program
(a) Administration $179,900‑‑pass; (b) Tripartite Cattle
Stabilization Plan $150,000‑‑pass;
(c) Tripartite Hog Stabilization Plan $1,698,200‑‑pass; (d)
Tripartite Sugar Beet Stabilization Plan $674,700‑‑pass; (e)
Tripartite Bean Stabilization Plan, zip; (f) Tripartite Lamb Stabilization Plan
$24,000‑‑pass; (g) Tripartite Honey Stabilization Plan $158,300‑‑pass;
(h) Net Income Stabilization Account $12,910,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $15,795,100 for the Department of Agriculture, Income
Insurance and Support Program, for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March,
1995.
Item 9. Lotteries Funded Programs (a) Agricultural
Societies Grant Assistance (1) Operating $274,900‑‑pass; (2)
Capital $99,000‑‑pass.
9.(b) Keystone Centre Grant Assistance $150,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 3.9:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding 523,900
for the Department of Agriculture, Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal
year ending the 31st of March, 1995.
The last item to be considered for the Estimates of the
Department of Agriculture is item 1.(a) Minister's Salary on page 15.
At this time we ask the staff to leave the table.
Shall the item pass?
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I wrote a letter to
the minister on May 11, and I got a letter from him in regards to the farm and
rural stress line that I guess all the MLAs in the Legislature have
received. The special assistant
acknowledged the letter, but saying that it was the Minister of Health (Mr.
McCrae) that would be looking at that.
To this date, I have not received a reply from the Minister of
Health. I am just wondering, what is the
Department of Agriculture doing in regards to discussing it with the Minister
of Health and the Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) maybe.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am pleased to
report to the honourable member, as I reported to the honourable member for
Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk), that request has been met with favour by my colleague
the Minister of Health, and a one‑time source of funding has been
provided to the rural stress line from the Ministry of Health. I would encourage the honourable member to
take the matter up directly with the Minister of Health for further details.
Mr. Gaudry: I have a couple more questions. In 1988 Mrs. Evelyn Anderson lost her leg
below the knee in a farm accident. As
the minister knows, most farm members of a family, most often wives and
children, are a significant part of the operation; however, when injured, they
are rarely protected by any form of insurance.
They are not covered by workers compensation, nor does the occupiers'
insurance act provide them with protection.
When they take a case to the court, as in the case with
Mrs. Anderson, it is all too often dismissed because of their relationship to
the farmer and the exclusions found in most insurance policies. Can the minister tell us what review is
underway in his department to examine this inadequate coverage for the farmers?
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can tell the
honourable member that I have met not so long ago with organizations like the
Manitoba Safety Council. We recognize
that farm accidents are extremely high and at an unacceptable level. It is the nature of farming, the kind of
equipment that is used and regrettably all too often, not under the greatest of
supervision, particularly if youngsters are involved.
However, on the other hand, that is the big lure of
farming. We choose to stay out of that
web of regulations and supervision that you live under when you work in an
organized, industrialized workforce. We
are independent, self‑employed operators. Changes have been made‑‑operators
can and I certainly encourage them to do and we through our extension work to
voluntarily enroll into various insurance programs including the Workers
Compensation program. They can sign into
coverage protection for accidents, work‑related accidents with our
Manitoba Workers Compensation program, but I readily admit that the take‑up
on this is very low. The premiums are
perhaps an obstacle, but other than that, there is not really much more that I
can do or that I am aware that the department is doing.
Mr. Gaudry: So is there any way that amendments to The
Workers Compensation Act or The Occupiers' Liability Act are going to be
contemplated by your department?
* (1650)
Mr. Enns: I just do not know whether we can contemplate
any further action other than the ones that we are doing without using some
forms of mandatory legislation which would be met with considerable resistance
in the farm community.
Hon. Donald Orchard (Minister
of Energy and Mines): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I just want to take
this opportunity on the Minister's Salary to congratulate him for his visionary
approach on a number of fronts.
The faculty of agriculture at the University of Manitoba
has been a very, very key and instrumental faculty in bringing to the province
of Manitoba the quality of graduate both in the diploma and the degree course
and in post‑graduate training, the quality and talented individuals in
the research supported at the faculty of agriculture that has placed Manitoba
enviably in the lead of all provinces in terms of development of special crops
that are innovative and world‑leading in terms of their market
opportunities, and whether that be canola, the very significant Cinderella crop
that was pioneered in research at the faculty of agriculture, plant science
division, by Dr. Baldur Stefansson.
Manitobans deserve to be very, very proud of their faculty
of agriculture and its significant contribution to this province, and I think
the minister and those who work with him, to have the upgrade of the faculty
buildings included in the infrastructure program was a very, very significant
recognition of the opportunity that agriculture represents for Manitoba into
the future.
The minister has identified on numerous occasions in the
Question Period some very significant opportunities in the red‑meat
industry, where our hog industry has the opportunity to be a vehicle for the
creation of 8,000 to 10,000 additional jobs in the province of Manitoba all
dedicated to the export of some of the finest meat products in the world, and
for that, an achievement of that, all Manitobans can benefit and can take some
pretty significant comfort in knowing that they are helping to feed the
starving in the world with some of the best food products in the world. It is not going to be an easy time to
accomplish all of the these very significant new initiatives because there are
lots of people who would, for varying reasons, try to oppose them.
But I want to urge this minister to continue to put
agriculture at the head of industries for growth and for vision.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to take
the opportunity at this time to thank the minister and his staff for the
material they provided us with and the answers they gave us in these
Estimates. I am sure at some point it
was frustrating for the staff because we tended to move from one item to cross
over sections, but I want to thank the staff for their co‑operation.
There were a few questions that we asked, I think
particularly of one question that I asked under MACC for some documents, and
the minister has indicated that he would provide us with that information. I hope that we can be provided with that very
soon so that we can pursue those particular issues.
There are many other issues that we could have raised in
these Estimates. Unfortunately, time
restraints and other Estimates that come up result in our having to leave
those, particularly the one that the member for St. Boniface mentioned, farm
safety. I am particularly concerned with
the number of people who continue to have to work off the farm to supplement
their farm income, and I hope that we can see a growth in the farm income. We see articles such as we saw in the paper
the other day, where farm incomes have gone up, but those figures look very
good until you start to look at the bottom line, and really farmers are really
no farther ahead than they were.
There is a tremendous opportunity here in Manitoba, and I think
that we have to work together to educate the public on the value of
agriculture, although there are some areas where we disagree on, and there are
areas we disagree in the direction the department should be going. I think that there is an opportunity and that
we should be working very much to protect the environment and the
sustainability of the rural community so that future generations can also make
a living in rural Manitoba.
So I thank the minister for his answers in these Estimates,
and I have to indicate that they have been quite enjoyable.
Mr. Gaudry: Quickly, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just to say
thank you to the minister and his staff for the information that was passed
along. Like the member for Swan River
mentioned, the time restraint is important, but on behalf of my party I would
say thank you to the minister again.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the item pass? The item is accordingly passed.
Resolution 3.1:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$2,451,700 for Agriculture, Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
The concludes the Department of Agriculture.
* (1700)
The hour being 5 p.m., committee rise.
JUSTICE
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 Justice. We are on item 2.(e) Victims Assistance, page
111, of the Estimates manual. Would the
minister's staff please enter the Chamber.
Item 2.(e) Victims Assistance (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits.
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Madam Chair, I
have some questions about the Women's Advocacy program, now known as WAP. What is the allocation to WAP in the fiscal
year both in terms of salaries and other?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General): I am informed that the number we have is the
global allocation for Victims Assistance which deals with both Women's Advocacy
and Child Witness. So we would undertake
to get that information for the member as soon as possible. We just do not have it here right now.
*
(1430)
Mr. Mackintosh: When the minister gets that information,
would she also provide the comparable data for the previous fiscal year, in '93‑94
and the current Estimates that we are studying.
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we will provide both year‑over‑year
funding. The member, I understand, would
like it broken down in terms of administrative costs and program costs.
Mr. Mackintosh: I understand that there is one lawyer and
four counsellors currently on the staff of WAP.
I wonder what changes are contemplated to the SY complement of WAP given
the pending expansion?
Mrs. Vodrey: In the Women's Advocacy program the staffing
is as follows: one lawyer, three
counsellors, one administrative support, for a total of five. There will then be an additional three
counsellors; one counsellor for Thompson, one counsellor for Brandon, one counsellor
for The Pas. However, it should be noted
that those counsellors in rural Manitoba will provide counselling services both
for Women's Advocacy program and also counselling for Child Witness.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is the reason that there is an expansion to
The Pas, Thompson and Brandon of WAP because the family violence court is being
expanded in those cities and towns?
Mrs. Vodrey: No, there is not at this time a proposed
expansion for the family violence court to those three areas. However, the courts in those three areas,
Brandon, Thompson and The Pas, prosecute domestic violence cases, and so this
was an effort to support the victims in those domestic violence cases with the
services that are currently available in Winnipeg.
Mr. Mackintosh: It is my understanding that there is a great
deal of services provided to aboriginal women, in particular by WAP, and I want
to ask some questions about whether these services are culturally appropriate
and whether the victims are comfortable with the staff. Are there any aboriginal counsellors or
workers at WAP?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that of the
counsellors in the Winnipeg area, one of those counsellors is an immigrant
woman, and that for the counsellors who will be hired in Thompson and The Pas,
the expectation is that they will be aboriginal women.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the department made an application to the
Human Rights act or taken other measures to hire on an affirmative basis in
Thompson and The Pas?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed, in those ads,
though they did not specify aboriginal, they did specify affirmative action and
they did specify experience in being able to work in the Cree language.
Mr. Mackintosh: When does the minister expect the WAP offices
in Thompson, The Pas and Brandon to be fully operational?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, we expect that the Brandon
office will be open by mid‑July, no later than late July, and we expect
the offices in Thompson and The Pas to be open in September.
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister advise whether the entire
source of the funding of WAP comes from the Victims Assistance Fund? If not, what other funds or pockets does it
comes from?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that all of the
funding comes from the Victims Assistance Fund.
*
(1440)
Mr. Mackintosh: Will the minister advise whether that is the
same for the previous fiscal year?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I am informed that the process is
that the spending for the expenses of the Women's Advocacy program is spent
from general revenue and then cost‑recovered from the Victims Assistance
Fund so that, in finality, it is then paid for totally by the Victims
Assistance Fund. That is what will be
done this year, and that was what was done last year. The recovery, however, took place after the
act had been passed‑‑I beg your pardon, the amendment had been
passed to the act.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would like to talk in general then about
the mandate of WAP. I think there is
great potential for an organization such as this. I am just wondering if WAP has put forward
proposals, or if the government is considering proposals to change its mandate
and provide further services to abused women.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the program is monitored
by the department. At the moment we do
not anticipate any program changes. What
we did this year was expand the service.
Mr. Mackintosh: I notice on the Other Expenditures aspect,
Transportation, there has been a significant reduction in allocation. I am just wondering what that represents,
what those cuts represent.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that in the
past, there was a worker, a counsellor from Winnipeg who travelled very frequently
up to Sandy Bay and also made a number of trips to the North, because there was
not a program offered in the North. Now
that we have expanded the service into the North, we will not be needing to
have that counsellor travel north from Winnipeg.
Mr. Mackintosh: So it is WAP that is being affected by this
cut, I understand.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, again this is‑‑how
it can be characterized as a cut in terms of the overall service surprises
me. It is a result of the expansion of
the service that we will have an individual who will be available to serve the
North. The person who did the travelling
in the past, however, did work with the Child Witness program, and now the
worker in the North will be assuming that responsibility.
Mr. Mackintosh: Just to clarify the answer, is it the WAP
transportation budget which is changing here?
I will leave it at that.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, this budget represents a
total budget for all of the Victims Assistance programs. It includes WAP and Child Witness Support,
and the budget, I am informed, previously included travel from Winnipeg into
the Sandy Bay area and into the North.
Now that we have expanded the service into the North area, we will not
be looking at the transportation costs from Winnipeg, therefore the reduction.
Mr. Mackintosh: At a minimum, can the minister assure the
committee that the cutbacks in transportation budget in the Child Witness
Support program and WAP will not be reduced at least until the Thompson and The
Pas offices are fully operational?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I can tell the member that
the money that is available in the Estimates is money which will not cause any
jeopardy to the service which is being provided. Again, I would point out to him that in fact
there will be an expansion of the service for the northern areas by the fall.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise what the travel
budgets are, if any, for the Thompson and The Pas offices?
*
(1450)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, at the moment I do not
have available the travel budgets or the transportation budgets which will be
allocated to the northern offices. The
budgeting is done by and large in a global budget. However, when the offices are open, we will then
have an allocation available to those offices.
So at that time, perhaps, I can provide the member with some more
detail.
Mr. Mackintosh: The accessibility of WAP in particular to all
Manitobans, and I can say particularly to women on northern reserves, is
critical for the WAP program to fulfill even part of its function then.
I want to just put on the record my
concern about the need for an adequate transportation budget. Even as The Pas and Thompson office is open
it will be necessary for, and I hope it will part of the mandate, the
counsellors in those offices to be accessible and reach out to northern
communities.
From what I am aware of northern
transportation costs, I think that a reduction on this line represents an
unfortunate reduction.
Having said that I, at this time, have
no further questions under Victims Assistance.
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): I just wanted to
put some comments on record in response to the closing remarks from the
minister last night about community‑based programs, when there are pilot
programs, that the opposition would have these pilot programs automatically
become permanent programs thereby causing an ever‑escalating bureaucracy.
I do not think that was ever
suggested. What was suggested was that
the original purpose of the act was to recognize victims as much a part of the
justice systems as the police, as the accused, as the judges and the lawyers.
They are all part of the system. Yet here in this one element to the system,
some might argue one of the most important parts of the justice system, are
treated differently in that if a pilot program shows that it is a benefit to
the system, if it was to continue to fulfill that service, that it has to go
and find funding in the community. Well,
maybe the correction system should be going out to find funding in the
community. Maybe the prosecution branch
should be funded by volunteerism and that.
It is the principle.
I think what was being suggested was
when community‑based programs, pilot projects are shown to be very
effective, they do become part of the justice system and treated on an equal
basis as all other parts of the system.
So I just wanted to leave no impression that this opposition are
spendthrifts and are just looking for an ever‑increasing bureaucracy in
the justice system.
Whoever forms the government after the
next election will be working with the same bureaucracy, the same staff,
probably within the same parameters within the budget, and it will be just the
principles that will be applied.
The principle that will be applied
from this party is that victims are as equal a part of the justice system as
all other parts and should not be treated differently. That is my only comment on this line in the
budget.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(e) Victims Assistance (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $518,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$784,600‑‑pass; (3) Grants $517,400‑‑pass.
2.(f) Criminal Injuries Compensation
Board.
Mr. Mackintosh: Accessibility is a big issue for me
today. I just discovered my name in the
phone book under the letter G. Nice big
print, too.
Last year an unfortunate decision was
made by the government to deindex benefits payable under the Criminal Injuries
Compensation scheme. I ask the minister,
what impact has resulted from this deindexing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I wonder if I could ask the
member to clarify his question in terms of impact. What information was he wanting to receive in
that area?
Mr. Mackintosh: First of all, have there been appeals and a
heightened level of complaint as a result?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed there have been no appeals that
we are aware of. However, we will
undertake to check with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board just to make
certain that is the answer.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister would more fully
explain the negative figure of $550 that is footnoted No. 1. Is that because there has been a reassessment
of a future liability?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that this is
a line which speaks to the reduced number or reduced amount of accumulated
liability, that the province elsewhere in the Manitoba accounts has a line
which accounts for this liability. Over
the past three years, we have not awarded lifetime pensions, and so as a result
of not awarding lifetime pensions and also some of the recipients having died,
then the amount or the liability then is reduced, and that is what this line
reflects.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does this line also reflect the savings to
the compensation board as a result of deindexing?
Mrs. Vodrey: The answer is no.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise of the amount that
the government has or the board has saved as a result of deindexing?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that last
year we undertook to find that amount, and that was given, and we will give the
same undertaking this year, that we will find that amount and provide it to the
member.
Mr. Mackintosh: Is it the policy of the compensation board to
attempt to make lump‑sum payments wherever possible rather than lifetime
pensions?
*
(1500)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that since
1992, the lump sum awards have been offered.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise why‑‑she
can see my assumption in this statement‑‑the lump‑sum
payments are cheaper than the lifetime pensions? Can the minister advise when lump‑sum
payments are made, rather than lifetime pensions? What circumstances are considered?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that since
1992 the lifetime pensions have not been offered. Since that time, it has been a lump‑sum
settlement. However, there are lifetime
pensions that are being paid because those were in place before 1992 and so
those will be seen to the finish.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the recovery of $550,000, therefore,
represent the move from lifetime pensions to lump‑sum payments as a
policy?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I can tell the member that
is true in part in that the existing pensions, their actuarial value is
declining and there have been no new lifetime pensions since 1992. So the assumption the member has made is
accurate in part.
Mr. Kowalski: In regard to compensation for victims that are
over the age of 65, are there any special provisions for people who are
receiving a pension, a CPP pension or an Old Age Security? Is that taken into account in any way as far
as the compensation they receive from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I refer the member to Section
14(1) of the act which speaks specifically to this. Just reading from the act: Subject to the regulations, in determining
the amount of compensation, if any, to be awarded to an applicant, the board
shall deduct (a) any amount paid or payable at the time the award is made (i)
to the victim or (ii) to his dependants in respect of the disability or death
of the victim under The Workers Compensation Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the
Unemployment Insurance Act or any other act of Parliament or the
Legislature. So it is a balance.
Mr. Kowalski: I just want to understand the rationale. If someone is getting compensation from the
Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and they are also able to get some income
from another source, such as they are still able to continue to work part time,
that would not be deducted off their compensation, but if they were getting a
pension, it would be. Is that correct?
*
(1510)
Mrs. Vodrey: The purpose of the act is to ensure that
there is no undue financial hardship to the individual. The purpose is not to provide damages. The purpose, then, is to replace losses, and
the pensions are based on the person's earning or minimum wage and would be
reduced as the person was then able to begin to work.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(f) Criminal Injuries Compensation
Board (1) Other Expenditures $2,362,900‑‑pass; (2) Less: Reduction in Actuarial Liability ($550,000)‑‑pass.
Resolution 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $63,487,800 for Justice, Public Prosecutions, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1995.
Item 3. Justice (a) Administration and
Special Programs (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $128,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $23,000‑‑pass.
3.(b) Civil Legal Services.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, I would just like to introduce
to the committee two members from the Department of Justice. I would like to introduce Mr. Ron Perozzo,
who is the associate deputy minister of Justice, and Mr. Tom Hague, who is the
director of Civil Legal Services.
Mr. Mackintosh: I wonder if the minister would advise what
the policy of Civil Legal Services is respecting the contracting out for legal
services to private firms.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, we do not contract
out. We do, however, retain outside
counsel in some circumstances, and the type of circumstances are: first of all, the type of legal services
required is of a very specialized nature, and it would be more cost‑effective
to retain an outside specialist rather than having in‑house counsel take
the time required to develop expertise in the area in question. Secondly, in areas where it would not be
appropriate for government counsel to act.
For example, it would not have been appropriate for government counsel
to act as counsel to the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry. Also, where it is more effective to have‑‑where
it is more cost‑effective to have counsel act. This is most frequently arising when it is
necessary to provide a limited amount of legal services in the northern
area. Fourthly, where the matter is one
of such magnitude that it would not be possible to provide the necessary legal
services and still meet the ongoing needs of clients for legal services.
Mr. Mackintosh: In the event that outside counsel is
retained, what process does the department have to determine what counsel
should be retained?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the selection of counsel
is based on who is the most qualified to do the service, past experience that
we might have had with that counsel. We
consult the client department as to counsel that they might recommend, and then
in the final analysis we determine who would then be the most appropriate, and
they are retained on a formal letter of retainer.
Mr. Mackintosh: Does the government have a policy whereby
there is an invitation from a certain number of firms or individuals so that it
resembles, in a sense, a tendering or an open process?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, in the area of Civil Legal
Services, we have not tendered in the way the member has asked about. The reasons are that usually it is a very
specific type of service which is required and tends not to lend itself to that
particular kind of process.
Mr. Mackintosh: I now want to talk briefly about two areas
that I think appropriately come under this area. The first is with regard to a very current
issue and that is the matter raised in Question Period today, the decision made
by the central command of the Royal Canadian Legion and the role of the Human
Rights Commission of Manitoba in dealing with that. I understand from the First Minister's (Mr.
Filmon) remarks in the House today, that a complaint has already been lodged
with the Human Rights Commission.
I am wondering if the minister intends
or would consider meeting with the commission to determine if that particular
complaint could be expedited so that we can have some national leadership on this
issue and nip the problem in the bud.
*
(1520)
Mrs. Vodrey: I know that this is an important issue;
however, it would be best covered under 6.(a), which is the Human Rights
Commission, the line for the Human Rights Commission, and best dealt with when
the executive director of the Human Rights Commission is available.
Mr. Mackintosh: I have no problem with that and just as well
that the minister is on notice with my concern.
I also want to touch briefly on the
fall‑out of the Immigrant Investor Program, and I believe this does touch
on this area. I had asked the minister
in Question Period some days ago whether the government has been put on notice
of any claim or pending claim by any party as a result of the Immigrant
Investor Program and, in particular, any claim with respect to the Winnipeg
Renaissance partnership?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that to the best of my
knowledge and the staff who are present today that we have not been served with
any civil claim, though we can check with the client and we can check our
records.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would ask the minister to do that. I also ask whether she would advise or check,
if she does not have the information now, as to whether there has been any
lawyer's demand letter, a demand letter sent or received by the government?
Mrs. Vodrey: Yes, we will undertake to do that.
Mr. Mackintosh: Has the minister or any other minister of the
government sought legal opinion as to the potential liability of the province
regarding the Immigrant Investor fund, and particularly the Winnipeg
Renaissance partnership? I certainly do
not want to know the content of any opinion for obvious reasons, but has such
an opinion been sought?
Mrs. Vodrey: I am advised that the client department is
being advised by outside counsel, and so we do not have any knowledge of
opinions sought or received.
Mr. Mackintosh: I take it that is the Department of Industry,
Trade and Tourism?
Mrs. Vodrey: That is correct.
Mr. Mackintosh: I asked the minister whether at this time she
currently has any role with regard to the Immigrant Investor Program, given
that she advises she is not aware of any claim having been served, at least as
of today, not aware of any demand letter having been received.
Mrs. Vodrey: My role was to ensure that the client did
receive legal advice, and so it made the arrangements for them to receive
advice from the outside counsel that they are currently using.
Mr. Mackintosh: Would the minister advise who the outside
counsel is?
Mrs. Vodrey: The outside counsel is Taylor McCaffrey.
Mr. Mackintosh: I am interested in knowing what outstanding
claims currently exist against the people of Manitoba, the Province of
Manitoba. I wonder if the minister has
such a list and the total value or the breakdown of the value of the
claims. Because I am not aware of what
volume may exist, perhaps the minister would first of all respond to that
question in general as to whether a listing is available and, if it is
available, how extensive that is.
Mrs. Vodrey: I am informed that we have a list of ongoing
litigation. It is not quantified by
value, but we certainly can provide the member with the list of litigation.
Mr. Mackintosh: I would appreciate that list at the
minister's earliest convenience.
Mr. Kowalski: It is not a question on this line, but I need
some information. A colleague would like
to ask some questions about the Maintenance Enforcement branch, and I am not
too sure if it would be under line 3.(e) Family Law or if it would be under
Court Services. Where would be the
appropriate place to ask questions in regard to Maintenance Enforcement?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I believe that the kinds
of questioning that the member's colleague would like to ask would be asked
under Court Services. There would
obviously be some opportunity under the line in Family Law, but I think the
details that that individual is asking would best be covered under Court
Services.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(b) Civil Legal Services (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $1,835,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $249,800‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($2,085,200)‑‑pass.
3.(c) Legislative Counsel (1) Salaries
and Employee Benefits $1,317,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$383,600‑‑pass.
3.(d) Manitoba Law Reform Commission.
Mr. Kowalski: The board fees, I notice a reduction in board
fees. What is that attributable to? Under Other Expenditures, from 43.6 to 36.8.
* (1530)
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, I am informed that the
actual for 1993‑94 was 33.1. So
what we have done is adjust this year's Estimates in line with the actual of
the previous year.
Mr. Kowalski: I would like some information on the make‑up
of the commission, the numbers and individuals, if that is possible, who make
up the Law Reform Commission.
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chairperson, the commissioners of the
Law Reform Commission are Mr. Cliff Edwards, who is the president; Eleanor
Dawson, member of the commission; John Irvine, member of the commission; Pearl
McGonigal, member of the commission; and Justice Gerald Jewers, member of the
commission.
Mr. Kowalski: How often does the commission meet, and what
is their per diem rate?
Mrs. Vodrey: Madam Chair, the Law Reform Commission
members do not have a per diem rate but instead are given a flat remuneration
for the year. The president of the Law
Reform Commission receives $12,000 per annum.
The members of the Law Reform Commission receive $7,500 per annum except
for Justice Jewers who receives no remuneration.
I would just like to take a moment to
introduce to the committee Mr. Jeff Schnoor who is the executive director of
the Law Reform Commission.
Madam Chair, they also meet as
required. I am informed that recently
they have a number of projects, and they are meeting frequently now.