LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA

Monday, June 13, 1994

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

PRAYERS

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

TABLING OF REPORTS

Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative Review 1994‑95 for Government Services and also for the Manitoba Seniors Directorate.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Bill 24‑‑The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment Act

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that leave be given to introduce Bill 24, The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment Act (Loi modifiant la Loi sur la réduction du volume et de la production des déchets), and that the same now be received and read a first time.

His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table his message as well.

Motion agreed to.

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 Tyndall Park School twenty‑five Grade 4 students under the direction of Mr. Colin Stark. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).

Also, from John Henderson Junior High, we have seven Grade 7 students. This school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg).

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

* (1335)

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

Immigrant Investor Fund

Government Action

Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in 1989, we asked the provincial government to monitor the investments of people involved in the Immigrant Investor Fund, on November 8, 1989. We further asked the government to protect Manitoba's reputation in terms of investors from Asia on April 29, 1991, when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) talked about how Manitoba has one of the best records with respect to ensuring that investments of immigrant investors are put in secure vehicles and secure investment opportunities.

Mr. Speaker, today, investors from Asia are quite concerned and quite disappointed in terms of Canada and Canadian reputation in terms of the security of their investment, an issue we have raised with the provincial government for the last five years. This is very important for Manitoba, and I am sure the Premier feels it is important, as well, because we all want to see Manitoba's reputation be impeccable and Canada's reputation be impeccable to investors all over the world.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon), what action is this government taking to restore the integrity of our investments in Manitoba and in Canada for the investors here today?

Hon. James Downey (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was this government that took the lead nationally to call for an investigation as to the activities of the Immigrant Investor Program, which is a federal government program. That has to be made clear.

We have further communicated with the federal minister. I have, by letter, written to the federal minister asking not to release the funds. We have put three conditions forward, Mr. Speaker, that ask for a court‑directed solution to this problem. We have asked for representation, for the investors to be on the board of directors, and we have asked for a full disclosure or inquiry as to how the previous funds have been spent. Those are the three conditions we have asked for. They have not been met, and we have further indicated to the trust company our concerns and further advanced our conditions to them.

I believe we have done everything possible to protect the integrity of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, but also to give some direction to the federal government, which, by the way, did not heed our advice.

Mr. Doer: I want to table a letter. When we asked this question on May 16, Mr. Speaker, the government indicated they would be contacting the federal government. This is a letter dated June 1, 1994, indicating that, in fact, the federal government had approved the reprise on these funds, and the letter goes on to say that there is a request to downsize one of the projects affected by the funds.

I would like to ask the government, have they received any response from the letter they have written to the federal government? Will the Premier (Mr. Filmon) be raising this with the Prime Minister, because this is a very important international issue in terms of investment, and, Mr. Speaker, can the government table any response they have had from the federal government on this issue of integrity in investment in Canada and in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Downey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have, in fact, written a letter to the federal minister on April 25. I have a reply of May 13 that I am prepared to make available to the members.

I guess my concern is the fact that they did not deal with the three conditions which we had asked them to deal with. They are basing their decision on the fact that there had been an RCMP investigation which, in fact, did not deal with the matters we had raised with them.

So, again, we are still of the same position. Our position has not changed, but that is not being heeded by the federal government.

* (1340)

Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government must accept any proposals for the Immigrant Investor Fund prior to approval being ultimately given by the federal government. We have been raising this issue for the last five years, and, of course, the government did take action, we think very late in the game, with the investigation by Mr. Crewson in 1991‑92.

Mr. Speaker, investors today are talking about the fact that they trusted Canada, they trusted Manitoba, in terms of their investments and the integrity of their investments. This market in Asia and all investors across the world are very important to Canada and to our future.

I would like to ask the government, what action have they taken and what information have they directly provided to the investors in Manitoba projects under the Immigrant Investor Fund? Have they been in contact with the investors to let them know our concerns provincially, to let them know the concerns we have and the action we will take to restore the integrity of investments in the province of Manitoba?

Mr. Downey: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have to remind the member that this is a federal government program. Secondly, it is my understanding that his colleague, the former minister, Mr. Mackling, took it out from under the review of the Securities Commission, passed a regulation specifically removing it from the authority of the Securities Commission.

I can tell you, as well, Mr. Speaker, it was this government, this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) currently, who was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, and this Premier (Mr. Filmon) who called upon an inquiry to have a special audit of the programs in place. There was not one other province in Canada that did it. The federal government did not do it, even though, in opposition, the member, Mr. Axworthy, called for an investigation. We now have the Hansard of him calling for it, and I will be providing that information.

As well as his requesting a full‑blown investigation, we would like to know what his position is today on it, Mr. Speaker, because that has not happened. They have moved contrary to the wishes of the Province of Manitoba. We are concerned about the reputation of Manitoba, and we do believe it is a good place to invest.

Physiotherapy Services

Reduced Workweek

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last week in the House, we asked the minister about the effects of government cutbacks and Bill 22 on therapy services to victims of stroke, arthritis, et cetera, and to people who could not afford a delay in their treatment.

Can the minister today advise the House what provisions have been put in place in order to ensure that individuals who require therapy will not have unnecessary or needless delays as a result of government cutbacks and Bill 22?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the process of discussing with the hospitals their plans is ongoing. To the honourable member's credit, however, the issue he raised last week was felt by myself to be of sufficient importance that I raised the issue with the facilities with which we are working, as well, to ensure that our bottom line of patient care is not impacted in a negative way.

So the honourable member's raising of the issue of stroke victims last week was helpful to us, and I thank the honourable member.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that response, and maybe the minister can enlighten me as to what arrangements are being put in place for patients who require this kind of therapy, who attend the Seven Oaks Day Hospital, who have been advised by the day hospital it will be closing on Friday, June 24; Friday, July 8; Monday, July 18; Monday, July 25; Friday, August 12; Monday, August 22 and Friday, September 9.

What arrangements are being put in place for individuals who require therapy, stroke victims and others, when that day hospital will now be closed because of the constraints put on the hospital by the government?

Mr. McCrae: I do not know if the arrangements the honourable member is talking about have to do with Seven Oaks' response to the Bill 22 matter. If it does, I will raise that issue with Seven Oaks, as well.

Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the minister is, at that time, if, in fact, they are going to go ahead and close, as they have indicated in the letter, the day hospital for those days, can the minister ensure that the government will provide alternative therapies and treatment such as some kind of expanded home care to these individuals, stroke victims, arthritis victims, and others who require ongoing treatment?

Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I told the honourable member and I have told him repeatedly that patient care is not to be impacted in a negative way. The honourable member has asked me about Seven Oaks. I said I would raise the matter with Seven Oaks to find out what the impact will be on patients.

It would be interesting, though, to know if the honourable member could tell us what inquiries were made at Brandon General Hospital in 1987 when, for the first time, 42 beds were closed by the previous government in Manitoba without any questions asked‑‑a New Democratic government. The honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) sat around that table that made that decision. Once the decision was made, he went into hiding, avoiding any questions from his constituents.

* (1345)

Education System Reform

Consultation‑‑Students

Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and Training.

I want to table a copy of the document called Grade 12 (Senior 4) Questionnaire, which has been sent around the province to various schools for Grade 12 students to complete as part of the education reform process. I want to start by saying that we fully support the move to include students in the consultation process and are very pleased to see the minister has come forward with some form of consultation with the students.

My question for the minister, however, given that the request was put to him by my colleague the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux) over a month ago to bring the students into the process, are the results‑‑this questionnaire only went out last week‑‑going to be back and tabulated and gone through by his department in time to include the responses from this very important group of people in deciding what education reform should be? Are they going to be incorporated into the blueprint itself, which the minister has repeatedly said will be coming forward before the end of the month?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his complimentary tone with respect to the question. I want him to rest assured that this was in the works long before the subject was broached by the member for Inkster.

The question is well put. I would indicate to the member that I do not know whether or not we can do a final collation of results coming forward from that survey before the blueprint is released, but I want to indicate fully, Mr. Speaker, there will be an awful lot of work to do on ed reform and on putting into place the final writing around that blueprint long after it is released in due course. I would think at that time, that information will be more aptly directed towards the completion of the writing of the report.

Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, again for the same minister, we have been advised by some of the schools that these were couriered to the schools, and it was asked that the results be couriered back to the government. However, we also spoke to some schools that indicated they had not received them.

I wanted to ask the minister for an assurance. I assume that these are going to all schools, and perhaps the minister can clarify that. If not, how were the schools chosen that these were going to go to?

Secondly, is Grade 12 the only grade level that is going to be surveyed in this fashion?

Mr. Manness: Yes, it is the graduating class, but more importantly, we have tried to bring into place a scientific survey method, whereby fair representation across all of our student body has been asked to fill in the survey.

Mr. Edwards: Finally then for the minister, rather than surveying all students, it is obviously being done on a random basis and perhaps on quite acceptable criteria.

However, I would ask the minister if he is prepared to table the criteria upon which certain schools were selected so that all members might be assured that the sample is, in fact, representative and, in fact, we have the benefit of across‑the‑province knowledge of what students are looking for in their education system?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice, and I will endeavour to try and provide more information with respect to the issue.

* (1350)

Education System

Guidance Counselling

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): While we are on the theme of listening to youth, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister of Education.

Statistics show that teen suicide is up by 300 percent in the last 15 years, and it is the second leading cause of death, second only to auto accidents. I was concerned today by news reports recommending that reports of youth in crisis go to school counsellors, rather than to Child and Family Services, where the counsellors are then, in turn, required to report them.

I would like to ask the Minister of Education the number of school counselling positions in Manitoba that have been eliminated in schools under this government in the last four years, and if we are not in a situation now where we do not have the personnel‑‑

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

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I do not know what point the member was really trying to make. Certainly, there have been changes with respect to funding and some student support services. What we have asked jurisdictions, school boards to do, is to share amongst themselves the level of support that the government provides by way of funding.

As the member is fully well aware, we brought into place three years ago a suicide crisis line under the call of the Department of Health. We are trying to do what we can within this area, this emerging concern area to all of society.

Ms. Cerilli: The point I am trying to make is, I do not think we have the resources in the schools anymore, perhaps we never did, to deal with the amount of crisis that is out there.

I would like to ask the government if they have any recommendations for how schools can deal with this overburden on the personnel in the schools, with the number of children who are in crisis due to family poverty and unemployment, family violence, death and drugs in families and teen pregnancy.

These are some of the problems I think that are leading to teenage suicide. I would like some recommendations from this government for schools as to how they can deal with these problems.

Mr. Manness: What we know for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that after 25 years of trying to deal with all of the problems in public schools, we are not getting very far. We are not getting very well along, and so maybe it is time to rethink what it is we are trying to do within our public schools, and that is the essence of ed reform that we will be bringing forward.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the government must realize that eliminating resources‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.

Ms. Cerilli: I would like to ask the minister, how will this government provide support to schools that are dealing with suicide when they have eliminated the school counsellor consultant in the Department of Education who was there to provide the program support? How is that support now going to be provided to schools in Manitoba?

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the seriousness of the question‑‑I did not want to give a fiscal response to this, but the member keeps repeating the same garbage over and over again.

In fact‑‑[interjection] That is right, Mr. Speaker, the garbage dealing with the fiscal reality‑‑18.7 percent directed towards education today, as compared to 17.2 when we came into government. That is the garbage to which‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think that the minister's use of the word "garbage" in reference to my question is completely inappropriate and not parliamentary, and I would ask that he withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. That is a dispute‑‑

Mr. Manness: On the same point of order, garbage is too nice a word for that.

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Education System Reform

Consultation‑‑Students

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education.

In the student survey that was put out, the minister makes reference to a student behaviour code. If we go back to the high school commission review, where there was a request in terms of rules governing a learning environment‑‑in fact, some provinces, for example, the Province of New Brunswick has brought in a provincial code of conduct or behaviour for schools.

My question to the minister is, is this government looking at bringing in a province‑wide code of conduct or behaviour for Manitoba schools?

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, it seems the member for Inkster is trying to scoop the announcement with respect to ed reform. I would say to him that the greater focus will be within the school community, and indeed, the school community will decide what code of conduct it would wish to apply to itself. In our view, that would probably be a preferred course of action.

I have seen some of the provincial codes of behaviour, and they are extremely wide. They are not an awful lot different from not having a code at all. Consequently, I would think it might be better to focus on within the school community and let them determine what code of behaviour they want to have for themselves.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, allow me to be very clear using an example.

We in the Liberal Party believe that, as a student, you should not be able to hit a teacher‑‑

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.

The honourable member for Inkster, with your question, sir.

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Education is, if a student hits a teacher, will the minister agree that this is wrong and provide a basic code of conduct that would allow a very strong direction to all the student bodies across the province of Manitoba and say so in a provincial code?

Mr. Manness: I have been listening to my colleague the Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) day after day trying to get a view from the Liberal Party of where they stand on violence, Mr. Speaker‑‑the soft approach.

So here, Mr. Speaker, we finally have the Liberals saying they do not want the teacher to be hit. Is that not a revelation? Who does? I am saying, this government is going to take a strong leadership role with respect to how it is we try and reduce the impact of violence in the classroom, and we do not need to take leadership from the Liberal Party, who finally, finally, is about to take a strong view on something.

* (1355)

Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear for the Minister of Education. Does this government support bringing in a code of conduct throughout the province of Manitoba that would, in fact, ensure some basic fundamentals, to ensure there is behaviour that is acceptable throughout the province of Manitoba, that it is being administered, not depending on what a school division might‑‑

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

Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will state the obvious. There will be nothing within ed reform that sanctions the hitting of the teacher in the classroom.

Child and Family Services

Time Guidelines‑‑Abuse Committee

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting Minister of Family Services.

When an individual is accused of child abuse, the individual goes through considerable anxiety, particularly when the accused person is found to be not guilty. The consequences for these individuals are devastating, and they include marriage breakup and family breakup. The Ombudsman, in his report for 1993, points out that there are no time guidelines for Child and Family Services agencies' child abuse committees, and these accusations are not always processed on a timely basis.

My question for the Acting Minister of Family Services is, has the Minister of Family Services taken action with Child and Family Services agencies to establish time guidelines for their abuse committees?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the minister.

Child and Family Services Act

Amendments

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Has the minister done a legislative review, and if so, will the minister bring in an amendment to The Child and Family Services Act, which is something that is badly needed?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, as has been said on a number of occasions, there are issues around The Child and Family Services Act which are under review, and I am sure the minister will be taking the member's comments seriously, and I expect that sometime in the near future, a major review of that act will be forthcoming.

Child and Family Services

Time Guidelines‑‑Abuse Committee

Mr. Doug Martindale (Burrows): Has the minister looked into the Child Abuse Registry committee and the issue of whether or not there are time guidelines there, and can the minister report on whether there is a backlog of individuals whose names are either waiting to go on the abuse registry or names which are eligible to come off the abuse registry?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), I will take that question as notice.

Sexual Assault

Victim Assistance

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

Today, Statistics Canada released a survey about victims of crime. Most disturbing in that survey was a finding that 90 percent of sexual assaults are never even reported to police. In fact, the City of Winnipeg statistics for last year show that reports to police for sexual offences went down by 16 percent.

My question to the minister is, would the minister finally take an active role and put programs in place to encourage women to come forward so we can deal with the needs of these hidden survivors and deal with this injustice?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we certainly do have a number of programs which are in place. We also have our victim services programs which do assist a number of victims across the province. I believe the range of people assisted was in the area of over 20,000 individuals in this province.

This is a very serious issue and we certainly are attempting to provide that assistance through the programs we have currently.

* (1400)

Domestic Violence Court

Backlog

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): Mr. Speaker, given that the study shows that women are victims of crime at a rate of 11 percent more than men, would the minister now announce a change in her policies, policies which have seen funding cease for victim services in five communities, a new get‑soft approach to domestic abusers and horrendous backlogs in the Family Violence Court so that the assailants do not face justice for up to one year?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that he is quite incorrect in the information he has put forward. He knows we have had a lengthy discussion around the issue of the time it takes to process individuals through the due process of justice. The member, himself, certainly coming from that background, should understand the importance of due process of justice.

Mr. Speaker, he also knows that we have been putting in place systemic changes to ensure that individuals can come forward, particularly in the area of our Domestic Violence Court, within a reasonable length of time. We have recently made changes which allow some individuals to come through within that three‑month window, and the longest period of time is in the five‑to‑seven‑month range, and that is very frequently as a result of requests from defence.

Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks of due process, she means overdue process.

Auto Theft

Government Strategy

Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St. Johns): My question is, despite Canada‑wide trends in crime rates and given that in Winnipeg, car thefts have increased by 170 percent in the last year alone and only 13 percent of those cases are being solved, can the minister explain to this House why, after a year and a half of this trend, there is not a single program put in place, nothing done by this government to deal with this epidemic of car theft and vandalism?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, I really have to go back to speaking about due process of law. Whatever kinds of phrases the member wants to throw out, he should be ashamed of himself, coming from a legal background, to throw out phrases which treat in such an incredibly flippant style the due process of law.

This government put in place the system of the Domestic Violence Court. That party did nothing. This government has action. We have acted and we continue to act on behalf of Manitobans.

Post‑Adoption Registry

Search Fee

Mr. Eric Robinson (Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting Minister of Family Services.

The minister will recall that my colleagues and I have previously asked questions concerning the imposing of a post‑adoption registry fee. This year, this government plans to take some $85,000 from people searching for their children.

How does this charge fit in with the government's stated support for the International Year of the Family?

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Acting Minister of Family Services: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct. This was discussed in the Estimates of the Department of Family Services, and I understand the proposal brought forward by this department is based on fees charged in the province of Saskatchewan.

Mr. Robinson: This fee is going to stop many people who do not have $300 for such fees. I would like to ask the same minister, how many fewer people will use the registry this year because of the government's actions?

Mr. Gilleshammer: Following on the Saskatchewan model, the registration fee is $35, and I would tell the member it will be waived for social assistance recipients.

Mr. Robinson: My final question: Given the example of Hilda Geisbrecht, who is being asked to pay $300, even though it was her son who contacted the registry, I want to ask the acting minister, what flexibility and what appeal process will the minister be putting in place for disputes over the fee being charged?

Mr. Gilleshammer: As the member is possibly aware, we cannot discuss individual cases here in the House. I would indicate that I will pass the member's question on to the minister and the department, and I am sure that they will get fair treatment.

RCMP Detachment

Ethelbert, Manitoba

Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan River): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by over 350 people from the Ethelbert area who are concerned because the Ethelbert RCMP detachment is being reduced from a three‑ to a two‑person detachment. They are concerned also because they are told that this detachment could be closed.

I want to ask the minister responsible why this detachment which serves a very large area is being reduced, and is this government moving towards closing more rural RCMP detachments in Manitoba?

Hon. Rosemary Vodrey (Minister of Justice and Attorney General): Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the RCMP is in charge of looking at how they will provide their services across the province and that they certainly work with communities. I work closely with the RCMP to make sure there is adequate policing service across this province.

We have, in addition, just entered into the agreement with the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council to ensure that there is policing on the reserve areas and will continue to work with the RCMP to see that there is very significant policing across Manitoba.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a study being done studying the utilization by some of the areas in Manitoba, and people have been told that until this study is complete, no more changes will take place, no more detachments will be reduced in size.

Why is the Ethelbert detachment being reduced before the study is complete?

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, what the member is speaking about is a process which I believe is taking place across Canada in terms of RCMP divisions where the RCMP is examining their delivery of service, whether or not there can be administrative RCMP officers who can be redeployed to do work actually in communities and to make sure that the service is the most effective one.

We are well aware of the study which is taking place and have observer status to monitor the ongoing process of that study.

Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is aware of this study. I want to ask her what assurances or what steps she is taking to ensure that people in remote areas, in rural areas, have an opportunity to have input, to give their opinions and to plead their case as to why their detachments should not be reduced.

Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a study which is being undertaken by the RCMP. It is being undertaken by the RCMP across this province to examine how they can best deliver and best utilize their complement within the province of Manitoba.

The RCMP, I understand, will be speaking with communities. I understand that has already begun. As I said to the member, we also retain an observer status to monitor the process of that study.

Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts

Government Action

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, I believe it was June 7, I attended a meeting of residents of Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts and their families and friends that was held as a result of increasing anxiety of the residents as a result of some changes, and where an ad hoc committee was formed. I believe George Le Baron will be the chair of this ad hoc committee.

My question is to the Minister of Health. As the minister was not there, nor his staff or anyone from his caucus, has he been in contact with Mr. Le Baron or anyone from his committee?

Hon. James McCrae (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's interest in this matter, but I wonder why it took him from last Tuesday when he attended the meeting to raise the matter with me. Matters have been raised on a daily basis by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) with myself before that meeting and since that meeting, so I appreciate the honourable member's interest, belated though it is.

The concerns of the people of that area are being very, very adequately and commendably represented by the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek, and we are working together along with the residents of the area to address the outstanding concerns that remain.

Mr. Kowalski: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is, will the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) work together with the board, the Metropolitan Kiwanis and this residents committee to resolve the situation in a positive way?

Mr. McCrae: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been working and will continue to work to provide the assurance to the people there that the residents are the No. 1 priority in the minds of the government and the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). We expect to have a satisfactory resolution of all matters.

* (1410)

Unemployment Insurance Commission

Training Freeze

Ms. Jean Friesen (Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education and Training.

For some months, there has been a freeze on portions of the federal UIC training money, and I wanted to ask the Minister of Education whether he had spoken recently to the federal Minister of Employment to determine what the impact of those delays in the federal social reform process will be and how much longer the portions of training money will be frozen in Manitoba.

Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Education and Training): Mr. Speaker, I have not recently spoken to Mr. Axworthy, but certainly we are waiting with bated breath the next move federally with respect to the whole reform policy. I am hoping there will be something concrete yet this month.

Ms. Friesen: My concern is for the continuing freeze, and I wanted to ask the minister, would he investigate the impact of these frozen funds on unemployed Manitobans? What proportion, for example, of unemployed Manitobans are getting training this year as compared to, say, two years ago?

Mr. Manness: I do not have that information. I will take the question as notice.

Ms. Friesen: Would the minister also investigate the impact of these frozen funds on Manitoba's community colleges, particularly for the planning for the fall session?

Mr. Manness: I know it is difficult for the colleges at this time to complete their planning for the fall schedule. I do not know at this point in time when it is we can expect a response to work towards greater certainty by the federal government.

Public Housing

Safety Review

Mr. Leonard Evans (Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Urban Affairs.

A couple of weeks ago, I raised the matter of installing fencing behind certain public housing units in the city of Brandon to help prevent future railway accidents involving young children. The minister responded positively. She also intimated, I believe, that the department would look at other public housing unit locations in Brandon with regard to this same problem.

I would ask her specifically today whether her staff would conduct a complete review to see whether other fences may be warranted as a preventative measure.

Hon. Linda McIntosh (Minister of Urban Affairs): Staff is going to take a look at other housing units to see if indeed a similar dangerous situation exists.

I have not yet heard back from them on that. I hope to do so before too long, and I will let the member know as soon as I have heard what they have had to report to me.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that answer, although I did not hear the latter part of it because of certain interjections, so I would ask the minister, when this review is complete, would she be prepared to make a report to the Legislature or make a public report of this problem?

Mrs. McIntosh: I had indicated in the last part to the question that was obscured by commentary in the House that was not for Hansard that I will be hearing back from my staff.

When I do, I will contact the member and let him know the results of that report. At that time, I will decide if we need to do anything further. I will be sure to stay in touch with him on it.

Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for a very positive response in this matter today and a couple of weeks ago.

As a more general question with regard to future construction of family housing units, will her department have any particular policy on the installation of fences as may be required? I am talking about future construction wherever in this province, again, considering the question of very small children who sometimes are difficult to control to ensure that we do everything possible to prevent any type of accident involving very young children.

Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate for starters something I believe I have mentioned that may not be known to the member that well, and that is, the federal government has now indicated it will no longer be funding or cost‑sharing in the construction of new social housing units. That cost‑sharing not being there may make it difficult for us to be doing a lot of new construction.

We are, however, looking at making sure that our existing stock is well maintained, and all of those issues concerning safety will be examined by staff. We do not currently have a policy that says we will build fences, but given that this situation has occurred, it is what I have asked them to explore.

Income Security Program

Telephone Service

Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr. Speaker, in the Pedlar report delivered to the government in August of 1991, one of the responses that the Pedlar report asked for from the provincial government was: "that Manitoba Family Services/Income Security implement a policy of including the cost of telephone services as a basic need for victims of domestic violence."

I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Family Services if that recommendation has been followed and the degree to which it has been implemented.

Hon. Harold Gilleshammer (Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, as my honourable friend is well aware, a number of reforms have been brought to the Income Security Program.

Just in case she has maybe lost the information I have given her in the past, I would indicate that among the things that were done was the creation of a new rate for disabled people to recognize some of their special needs. Single parents who are on social assistance who needed the comfort of maintaining their health benefits as they left the program are able to do that for up to a year at this time.

We have recognized that liquid assets were very low in the past and under the previous government had remained unchanged for some time. We made a major step in increasing those liquid assets so members of that community who are on social assistance are able to buy some of those things they needed.

Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.

NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS

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

Andrew Mynarski Park Commemoration

Mr. Dave Chomiak (Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House on the occasion yesterday to mark a very important ceremony in the life of Manitoba, Winnipeg and Canada in general. That is the commemoration of a park yesterday to honour Pilot Officer Andrew Mynarski, V.C., on the 50th anniversary of the fateful mission for which Mr. Andrew Mynarski was awarded the Victoria Cross.

Members from all political parties, the member for Niakwa (Mr. Reimer), the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), the member for St. Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) from our party all had occasion to attend the ceremony yesterday and commended and talked about the exploits of this very courageous individual who serves as a role model not only to individuals in the Polish community, but to all Manitobans and all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite fitting that a plaque was unveiled yesterday and a park was named in commemoration of Pilot Officer Andrew Mynarski to go together with the civic ward that carries his name, the Royal Canadian Legion that carries his name and the school that carries his name.

I recall as a youth, Mr. Speaker, the very strong effect that the exploits and the story of Andrew Mynarski had on me and all the children in our class from north end Winnipeg, in fact, because the story was contained‑‑and I think members in this House will recall‑‑in the standard reader we used to have in elementary school. It was a very courageous and fitting one. The effect of his courageous giving of his life for Canada and the very methodology in the way by which it was carried out had a very profound effect on me and my fellow students, many of whom were first‑generation immigrants from Poland and Ukraine.

I think it is very fitting that all members of this House join me in commemorating the 50th anniversary of this gallant individual's mission and all that he did for Canada and all he stood for, particularly in light of the anniversary commemorating D‑Day invasions that have occurred also almost simultaneously with this event, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Jack Reimer (Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join in expressing the gratitude of being invited to the unveiling of the plaque for Andrew Mynarski on Jefferson and Mandalay Street. It was indeed gratifying to be there, not only for the sake of bringing greetings from the government, but in meeting the family of Andrew Mynarski. His two sisters were there.

Also, another very important aspect of my visit there was meeting one of the crew members, one of the actual crew members who was on the plane with Andrew Mynarski on the unfortunate night which was 50 years ago almost exactly to the day. It actually happened on the evening of June 12. It was approximately about two o'clock in the late night of June 12 that the actual plane went down.

After the services at the park, there was also a commemorative service at the Canadian Forces air force base out on Sharp Boulevard in which there was the ceremony in a building that is dedicated to the memory of Andrew Mynarski with all the memorabilia, the original crew pictures and some of the actual happenings that happened on that fateful night.

Mr. Speaker, it was a very moving experience. It was an experience that I would join all members here in the House to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a great Manitoban, Andrew Mynarski. Thank you.

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

Mr. Gary Kowalski (The Maples): I would like to add my words of recognition to what went on on Sunday.

We in The Maples are especially honoured that the park chosen to honour Andrew Mynarski is in our constituency. I was moved by the ceremony. I met many of the family, friends, even an ex‑crew member of Andrew Mynarski at the ceremony. What I found especially touching was that a number of my former partners in the police force were there. I can remember situations of danger that we faced together and how those terrible incidents, whether it is in war or in peacetime, brings out the worst and the best in all of us.

I think we not only honour Andrew Mynarski, but all the other heroes that we never found out about. It was a great honour to be part of the ceremony. I join in commemorating this event.

Committee Changes

Mr. George Hickes (Point Douglas): Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 1994, I moved a committee substitution for the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources for the Tuesday, June 21, 1994, meeting. The substitution was the honourable member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie). At that time, the House agreed to a substitution.

Since that time, the committee meeting in question has been moved up from Tuesday, June 21, to Tuesday, June 14. I was wondering if there was leave of the House to make the committee substitution for the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources of the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) effective for June 14 instead of June 21.

Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make that committee change? Leave. [agreed]

Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the composition of the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for June 21, 1994, for 10 a.m.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Jim Ernst (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), 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 Environment; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation.

COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY

(Concurrent Sections)

ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order.

* (1430)

This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Environment. When the committee last sat it had been considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 52 of the Estimates book. I believe it is pages 28 and 29 of the book you are in.

Ms. Marianne Cerilli (Radisson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to start off with, I just want to get some clarification from the minister regarding other opportunities for raising issues related to this department. The member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) and I were just having a discussion with respect to the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation. We have a number of questions related to hazardous waste and the corporation.

I am wondering if we can get some commitments from the minister regarding the time we can expect the committee dealing with the corporation to resume, if he has made any commitments related to that and if he can tell the committee.

Hon. Glen Cummings (Minister of Environment): I have indicated that we will certainly answer as many questions as the members would like to bring forward right now. The House leaders will discuss what committees they are going to call and when.

Ms. Cerilli: I would just like to put on the record that, because there are so many environment issues, I would prefer to deal with the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation and those issues under that committee. I would ask if the minister is in agreement with that and if we could have some agreement that we would be able to have his indication that he is going to tell his House leader that he is willing to have the corporation come up under the standing committee within the next week or so.

Mr. Cummings: There is lots of opportunity and willingness to deal with any hazardous waste issues that the members would like to bring up right now.

Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister being coy? Is he suggesting that he is not going to resume the Hazardous Waste Management annual review of the annual report under the standing committee?

Mr. Cummings: It seems to me that almost every one of the annual reports out there has been outstanding for a year or two before opposition has chosen to pass them. The number of committees that are called have nothing to do with when those reports are passed.

If the member has a question, let us get at it.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I just finished saying, I think there are a variety of issues that we could deal with under hazardous waste, but there are a lot of irregularities going on with the Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.

I have an issue of Hazardous Materials Management magazine with me, and I have some questions related to the corporation based on this. I really want to use my time most expeditiously, and I would prefer to deal with the corporation at the committee. I would appreciate it if the minister would indicate to his House leader that we would like to have that standing committee resume within the next week or so.

Mr. Cummings: I think I am familiar with the article that the member referenced. If she has a question, I would be more than willing to answer it or attempt to answer it.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will then resume my questions related to the Environment Estimates review.

I want to start off with asking the minister to clarify the process now that there has been an injunction filed with respect to the hearings by the Clean Environment Commission on Louisiana‑Pacific's proposal up in Swan River.

Mr. Cummings: Everything is subject to what may unfold, I suppose, when the court resumes. But, at this point, the advice I have is that the court has simply indicated that the panel shall not make a decision prior to the court having heard the appeal when a date is set for the 23rd of June, and that would certainly appear to be quite compatible with the process that is underway at Swan River. The hearings are scheduled to continue this week and they are continuing.

Ms. Cerilli: So the hearings will continue and the commission will continue to hear research presented and testimony, even though the court will be preparing its material and going ahead on June 23, you said, when the court will sit.

Mr. Cummings: The court is not preparing at this point. Those who are seeking the injunction will undoubtedly be preparing their position. The court has set a date when they will hear their arguments.

Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that clarification.

I would ask if this deadline or this date of June 23 is compatible with dates that the company has put forward for its deadline.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members, if they want to carry on their conversation to do it up on the side over here so that the interject mike does not pick you up and interfere with Hansard.

The honourable minister, to respond.

Mr. Cummings: Let me very clear about this. The company has nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing to do with it.

Ms. Cerilli: Nothing to do with what, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.

Mr. Cummings: There seems to be an echo in here. I just had a question from the NDP critic as to whether or not the court dates were compatible with the company's proposals. My response is the company has absolutely nothing to do with what the court may or may not set for dates. They certainly did not consult the company and certainly did not consult me. The courts will act independently in response to the presentation that they have received in request of an injunction.

Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that, because what I was referring to was the deadline that Louisiana‑Pacific has given for when they wanted to be given the environment licence for the go‑ahead to begin construction. I heard there were some deadlines given of June at some point. I am wondering if this injunction is going to jeopardize that deadline at all.

Mr. Cummings: Is the member concerned that it might?

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with all due respect, I am the opposition. I will be asking the questions here today.

Is the minister not going to answer my question?

Mr. Cummings: As I have said many times, once the company enters into the environmental review process, it is out of their hands. They understand the process. They understand that the commission operates independently and certainly the courts operate independently, and they will have to function within those parameters.

* (1440)

Ms. Cerilli: So, just to clarify, the Clean Environment Commission is operating independently and is not bound by any requests in agreements or presentations or proposals by the company.

Mr. Cummings: That is correct. This is one thing, of course, that does, I think, create an aura that is sometimes to the advantage of the opposition and the opponents to major projects. It is not the first time that people who are opponents to a particular process have sought refuge in the courts or have restitution or relief, whatever the correct terminology would be.

The company indicated early on that it wanted to be in a certain position by a certain time, but, frankly, I have indicated many times those who criticize the Manitoba environment process, I think, do so probably not well advised, because the process is quite independent. We always expect panels to proceed expeditiously, but we do not expect them to be driven in the sense that somebody pulls a date out of the air, particularly a proponent pulls a date out of the air and proceeds.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister made the comment that they wanted to be at a certain position at a certain time. Does the minister have any information that could clarify that? What position did they want to be at at what time?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is absurd. I am being asked to regulate the company. At the same time, the member is now asking me to regurgitate or restate some publicly stated matters that the company put on the record. I would suggest they put it on the record perhaps before they understood our process, but my job is to enforce the process and let the commission operate unfettered.

Now that the environmental assessment is completed and the hearings are underway, I am not sure that the member is advancing her case or the case for environmental protection in this province by following this line of discussion. I certainly am going to make every effort not to say anything that would impede or reflect on either the commission or the courts.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all I am trying to do is get a little information from the minister and get that put on the record. This is the place where the Environment department is held accountable to the public of Manitoba and that is part of what my job is as the critic and the MLA for our party that does this. So I do not think that I am asking any questions that have not been, as the minister says, asked before. All that I am trying to do is put the picture together right here today. We are in an advantageous position of being in Estimates at this time. This is a very significant issue.

Mr. Cummings: I am quite prepared to enhance discussion or debate of the process and how it is followed and how it proceeds, but I have to emphasize that once any proponent enters into our process, we watch and wait worriedly until the recommendations come out the other end. We, I do not think, would ever want to put anything forward that indicates anything other than a great deal of respect for the process and for the commission and the work they are doing.

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, I am having difficulty hearing the minister. I do not know if he needs to speak into the mike or we need to have more decorum in the committee.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point of order, but I would ask the members who are here to please refrain from having any discussions or entering into the debate. This is an opportunity for the critic to ask some questions, and I would appreciate it if the minister was able to respond and be heard.

* * *

Mr. Cummings: I am basically repeating what I said earlier, that I am not anxious to do anything more than debate the format that is followed and to re‑emphasize that once this proponent, being Louisiana‑Pacific, or any other proponent enters into the process, they will have to conform to the process that we have laid out within the guidelines in The Environment Act.

I find it somewhat disappointing that we have on the one hand both the opposition parties somewhat skeptical of the process and stating so publicly, and then at the same time we have the member for Swan River (Ms. Wowchuk) putting on the record that she is disappointed in how slow the process is going.

So I have to express my frustration in viewing how some of my political antagonists view this process. I guess what you say depends on where you are and which audience you are discussing the issues with.

Certainly, I get the feeling there is some frustration on the part of the member for Swan River, that she would like this process to move along, and yet I get the sense from the direction of the questioning that I am getting from the member for Radisson, that she is quite sympathetic to the case that is being put forward to the court and questioning the speed at which the process is moving‑‑

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: I am not sure if the House rules apply here, but I definitely think the minister is impugning motives to my question, and I would just ask him to answer the questions.

I have two more questions on this issue and then I would like to move along. We do not have very much more time for the departmental Estimates, and rather than playing politics, the phrase they often like to use on the other side, I would like to just have the questions dealt with, and let us move along.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of order. It was clearly a dispute over the facts.

* * *

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am disappointed that we are getting into a situation where if I react to some of the angles of questioning that appear to be designed to imply or impugn, that the process into which we are entering is somehow flawed.

When I look at the somewhat dappled history of environmental assessment in this province prior to our government taking office, we had the Limestone project, one of the largest projects up to that date, being put in place without any environmental assessment. I see the NDP in Saskatchewan do not want to enter into an environmental assessment of their uranium mines, even though the federal government is seeking to have that done.

I ask your forgiveness if I appear to be a little testy about the manner in which our process is being run. The people from Louisiana‑Pacific have stated very clearly that this is one of the toughest processes that they have ever encountered. Yet I constantly have my critics saying that these guys will run amuck and referring in a derogatory sense to the fact that Manitoba is being treated like a Third World country.

It cannot be both ways. It cannot be a tough process in a Third World country. If that is what they think is happening here, then there is a great deal of confusion about the situation and the gravity, frankly, of the measures that are being taken to make sure that Louisiana‑Pacific operates in the future in a way that is regulated appropriately by the department, that any known impacts are determined at this stage in the process, and I would be more than anxious to move along to the next line of questioning.

Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister have a legal opinion with respect to the separation of the hearings and the environmental impact assessment on this proposal? By that, I mean to look solely during this hearing at the operation and the construction of the plant itself without examining the sustainability of the cut area?

Mr. Cummings: I am not going to enter into the debate about opinions. You, unfortunately, can find several different lawyers to provide different opinions depending on their approach. I am quite confident that the environmental assessment of the forests can proceed unimpeded.

I am advised this may well be one of the things that is being raised in the issues that are being put before the court, and therefore I probably will not answer the question.

Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister tell us if part of the proposal or any part of the agreement with respect to this company includes them now having some shares in Repap?

Mr. Cummings: I am ill equipped to answer that question, but I believe the answer is no.

* (1450)

Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then, these are two companies that are not in any way joined?

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

Mr. Cummings: I have not been privy to any discussion or review of the pedigree of these two companies, but I think what the member is probably referring to is that there are cutting areas that Repap had access to that they now acknowledge they would be unlikely to require.

As I recall the original situation, they have indicated that those cutting areas can be made available for other uses, and that may well be the use of this forest management plan.

I think I would again have to defer from answering the specifics of those questions, because that is regulated under the Department of Natural Resources. We are very cautious and very conscientious about the fact that what used to be given away is now a valuable matter, that being the deep forest cutting licences. It is not that long ago those were sort of meted out without much value necessarily being attached to them. We now certainly recognize the value that is attached there, and that has led to a much more rigorous licensing and allocation process.

Ms. Cerilli: Can we or will we have any of the cut allocation currently under Repap's cut area transferred to LP or Louisiana‑Pacific prior to there being a Clean Environment Commission or other level of government hearing, environmental impact assessment hearing, on that cut area?

Mr. Cummings: I do not think I am qualified to answer that question.

Ms. Cerilli: Why not?

Mr. Cummings: I am not the minister responsible for forestry, frankly.

Ms. Cerilli: It is a question related to environmental impact assessment. It is a question related to the ability to have environmental licensing for cut area. I think that it is possibly something the minister has to co‑operate with the other minister on, but certainly I think he has the authority to answer the question.

Mr. Cummings: I guess as a member of Executive Council I can answer any one of the questions. I just do not know the answer in this particular case.

I think where the member is trying to get to, however, is what is the validity of the environmental licensing of the forest cutting program and the process that that will be put through. It will very much look into the cutting practices, what areas will be cut, how they will be cut, the specific management in sensitive areas, stream crossings, where roads may or may not be allowed, all of those things, a very intensive process and certainly not anything that I understand other than the very strictest application of the forest management and the environmental licensing process for forestry management that will be followed.

I anticipate environmental licensing for the forestry program to be very intense and very detailed, and frankly‑‑I am allowed one candid comment this afternoon‑‑I assume that would be where people would wish to put forward most of their concerns and efforts, because this can be particularly detailed work.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then, given the completion of the operation, the plant itself, will there be any cutting with cut going to Louisiana‑Pacific prior to hearings on cut allocation and allowable cut for this new company?

Mr. Cummings: I am not sure that the question is totally relevant inasmuch as nothing will be cut without an environmental licence permitting that cutting.

Ms. Cerilli: That is not the question I asked, though. The question I asked was with respect to the environmental impact assessment on the cutting and allocation for the new company.

I am wondering if the minister can give us some guarantee that there will be an assessment before any cut is going to be supplied to the new company.

Mr. Cummings: The company is not going to be cutting forthwith once they have finished up the hearings that they are in. They are applying for a plant and the licensing of that plant. Immediately following that or as soon as possible, I would imagine that the next process would be followed.

I am not sure that I follow the gist of the member's question. I think what she is wondering about is timing down the road and whether or not the company might be able to operate or whether it might be confounded and ground to a halt because it had not got its forestry environmental licensing completed. I would remind the member that the company might well be able to buy logs from other sources. They do not have to buy them from Manitoba.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify, my question is related to supplying the new company with trees prior to an environmental impact assessment on its request for a cut licence, and I want some guarantees if that is going to be able to happen.

Mr. Cummings: I am responding as lucidly as I can that, even if they are unable to get the lumber, the wood they might need under the appropriate timing and licensing process, if that is the concern that the member has‑‑and I presume that she is concerned. If she wants them to be able to cut as quickly as possible, my answer is that if that becomes an issue, they can well buy from private suppliers, other pre‑existing wood‑harvesting licensees, some of whom might well be outside of the province. So the company will not be hamstrung by the process here, if in fact that should occur. They may be able to acquire the material from other sources.

Ms. Cerilli: Can they buy from Repap or from other local people?

Mr. Cummings: I am informed that, if they were to be buying from one of those sources, the licence of those licensees would have to be amended.

Ms. Cerilli: Can that happen without a public hearing or a public process and full environmental impact assessment?

Mr. Cummings: Repap, for example, annually has to publicly‑‑there is a licensing process which has a public component to it, an opportunity for public input.

Ms. Cerilli: The minister has talked at other times about not wanting to duplicate environmental impact assessments. Why did he make the decision or why was the decision made to split this process in two and not review the cut area and the operation and construction of the plant at one time?

* (1500)

Mr. Cummings: To begin with, it was pretty obvious, according to the appropriate personnel and the appropriate information that was gathered through our Forestry department, that there was sufficient material available, that large amounts of material that Louisiana‑Pacific might want, i.e., poplar, are, in fact, dying out there in the forest management area. Given that that will eventually have to go through a process that will rigorously lay out the cutting methods, the areas that will be left uncut, the management of the sensitive areas, the set‑aside areas, the wildlife protection, the stream crossings and all of those things, would be part of a licensing process, we then proceeded to deal with the request for the plant itself, which is very local and very specific in terms of its impact.

The fact is that we are very much in line with other jurisdictions in terms of how these types of projects are reviewed. The forestry and the mills are not reviewed jointly in any other jurisdiction either. So this process is not something that is irregular or off the wall. The legitimate questions were asked early on about availability of cut. They were answered. The environmental impacts of how that is going to be managed will be dealt with through the licensing process for the cut area.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

It is an easy leap for those who want to be critical and who want to be obstructionist in terms of development of this type of an industry to say that you must do the licensing first and then deal with the mill, but we have had pre‑existing licences and huge tracts of land across the Parkland area. We have the same sort of issue here in some respect as was raised during the parks issue that at one time park lands were cut areas and people were assigned cut areas. When the parks boundaries were laid down, people viewed an opportunity to make multidimensional, multipurpose areas to be brought under management of, in the broadest sense, a park for specific reasons. So those harvestable areas were included within the boundaries, but they were included fully expecting that they would, in fact, be harvested, but that there would be another level of management that would be applied to that area.

So I guess what I am trying to do is demonstrate that this is not some kind of a clandestine or irregular process that we are entering into. We fully anticipated it would be controversial in the sense that it would create discussion because it is a new industry, but the mill is very specific to the area of where it will sit. We are talking about a mill of which there are some 80, I believe, or close to 80 across North America.

So this is, in fact, a system that means that in many ways we will not be cutting some of the other trees across the country, or even in our own province that might be cut for construction purposes, because this is a product that can replace an awful lot of other construction materials that are made out of other species. It strikes me that, just as we have switched from different edible oils in the world market, there is quite an opportunity here to switch to a different construction product for our homes.

I have to put on the record, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, something that I saw in relationship to the mining industry in Newfoundland, where they put out a place mat which said, where does your home come from? On that place mat‑‑when people are sitting there waiting for their service or waiting for someone to come back from the washroom, undoubtedly people sit and look‑‑

An Honourable Member: Or sitting enjoying a cigarette.

Mr. Cummings: Or enjoying a cigarette, as my colleague says. I would not enjoy one, frankly, so I had better not touch that one. I would not, but the fact is that it talks about the number of products that come from the mining industry.

Your basements come from a product that is mined. The stucco on the outside comes from a product that is mined. Your electrical wiring comes from a product that has been mined. Your plumbing very often comes from a product that originally was mined in the raw state. Now I think we need to talk about‑‑

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am waiting for the segue back. Tie this in, Mr. Minister, please.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Cummings: I will try and be succinct and get to the end of my story. The fact is that I think we need to consider, if we want to talk in the broad policy sense about where we are headed, going into using oriented strand board as opposed to two‑by‑six, two‑by‑four and two‑by‑twelve in the construction of houses, then we need to consider that this may well be a very beneficial industry in the long run.

We need to make sure that we license it properly. We need to make sure that the forestry management aspect is properly controlled, but the fact is that we are using a product that generally stays in the cutting zones as something that rots back into the environment, or, where it is close to populated areas, and out obviously away from the core area of the city of Winnipeg, huge amounts of this material is sawed and used for stove wood. It is not unusual, once you get away from the Perimeter, to have large volumes of stove wood made out of poplar.

Now what we are talking about is harvesting larger amounts of a plant that regenerates itself rather rapidly. We will have to apply a different type of forestry management to it. We will have to learn from other jurisdictions what happens when you harvest large numbers of poplars out of a specific area, what is best for rejuvenation of the forest in those areas.

It seems to me that if we still continue to have construction made out of wood products in this country, we are either going to start importing them from Russia, where we know that they are not cut in the most environmentally sensitive way, where we know that they do not have the controls on their plants that we have here. We know that we have significant problems getting lumber shipments out of Russia licensed so that they do not transport disease and pests, along with the lumber into this country, that would destroy our forestry industry. We know those options are all there.

I fail to see why the member is so wound up about this that she is not prepared to look at some of the ways that we can improve the control, that we can manage the plant acceptably, that we can manage the forestry management in a way that the province of Manitoba will be able to harvest a product that is becoming very desirable in the construction business. It is no different‑‑I can draw another analogy right in downtown Winnipeg.

A hundred tonnes of our junk‑‑waste paper, poor, poor pulpwood, packing crates, wooden pallets‑‑are chewed up and made into a fairly acceptable wood pulp that becomes construction paper that we are exporting to Florida right now at the clip of about 100 tonnes a day to help them with their reconstruction after they were torn apart by a series of tornadoes the last two years. We are becoming part of a larger and more complex system, but I really object to being constantly challenged about whether or not we can manage the process here so that we can use the product responsibly so that we can regenerate it, so that we can have a sustainable industry. Because Louisiana‑Pacific is bringing all their own money to the table, does that all of a sudden mean that government loses its control? The answer is no.

* (1510)

Ms. Cerilli: So, in answer to my question about why the process was split, the plant and then the cut area, one of the reasons is that other jurisdictions do that, and the other reason is that we are becoming part of this global market. Is that what the minister is saying?

Mr. Cummings: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying‑‑

Ms. Cerilli: You lost me on the story about the mining. I am sorry.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for Radisson does not want to listen to my stories. It is probably better that she listen to that story than have me read into the record what the NDP in Saskatchewan are doing about uranium mining.

Point of Order

Hon. Harry Enns (Minister of Agriculture): I would like to enter into the debate, Mr. Deputy Chairperson

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point of order.

* * *

Mr. Enns: I did not have a point of order, but I am wondering whether I can enter into the debate and ask some questions.

An Honourable Member: No.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chair, now I do have a point.

Point of Order

Mr. Enns: A member of the Legislature has absolutely the same amount of right and access to a minister and to the department when considering the Estimates of that particular department, and I would like the Chair to show me where that is not the case. The fact that we have fallen into the practice where this has become a solitude debate between the critic and the minister is, in my judgment, a regrettable backsliding of what once used to be an informative debate for all members of the Legislature.

I simply claim my right to ask some specific questions germane to the issue before the committee right now, which has to do with how the governments and what the responsibility the government has in determining whether or not the resource is there in sufficient capacity to be provided for in this particular instance, which might go to help and explain the question that the honourable member has.

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point of order. I would advise members that at this time, as the Minister of Agriculture has stated, we have fallen into a practice of giving the opportunity of the critics to ask questions of the minister. When the critics are finished that line of questioning, if the honourable minister would like to put a question on this line, I will give the minister that opportunity at that time.

* * *

Ms. Cerilli: I was trying to get some clarification of why the department and the minister chose to separate the two areas to be assessed under The Environment Act, the plant construction and operation and the cut allocation. In his answer he referred to other jurisdictions not doing anything differently to what we are doing here. That concerns me because this government brought in Bill 49 a couple of sessions ago, I think it was, and I want to ask the minister if Bill 49, the amendments to The Environment Act that allowed for the phasing in or the staging of licensing, is going to be necessary or affect this development?

Mr. Cummings: This is not a phased licence. This is a mill licence, and the forestry operations will be licensed as well.

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then his answer is‑‑well, the minister referenced product leaving the province. I would like to ask the minister if he can tell the committee if the proposal from this new company includes an indication of where the product will be used‑‑if it will be supplied locally in Manitoba or if it will be leaving the province‑‑and if we have some sense of the percentages at this stage.

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is certainly nothing that I am aware of that binds the area of sale. Market will certainly dictate that, however. This province is notorious for importing B.C. fir, and I would think that the member is not likely‑‑and perhaps she would like to edify me, but I do not think the member is encouraging the use of further elimination of the B.C. fir because that is where some of the most concern is being raised right now about the cutting of some of the majestic fir in B.C.

In fact, Manitoba has encouraged the development of constructed building materials as a way of using, and it has increasingly grown, not just through this process but through forerunners of this process in B.C. and other places, where material that was once burned off as waste and used for heat in their drying process, is now being put back into chipboard and particle board and those types of materials, which provide very acceptable building materials using what would normally be waste.

Of course, once you get past the view of some, and I do not agree with this view, but there are a lot of people who view poplar and treat them as waste because they are interspersed with other softwoods out there; they are not always harvested. This provides an opportunity to take pressure off buying some of the long grain planks that have been available from cutting larger and older trees.

So I think I would have to answer that there is nothing that I am aware of that binds the market except that certainly the further you ship it the more expensive it is going to be, so we Manitoba should have an advantage price‑wise on product.

Ms. Cerilli: One of the concerns that was expressed to me was that some of the local people logging in that area are supplying local markets. Does the minister have any way of clarifying if there will be any disruption, based on this proposal, of that relationship?

Mr. Cummings: I am not aware of the details of the forestry licensing, or forestry cutting permits that some of the local operators have, except that I am aware of the issue and I am aware that every effort is being made, and I think successfully, to make sure that the traditional local operations continue.

But there is a case in point that I referred to earlier that needs to be put in the context of this question, and that is that there were a number of people who act as small cutters‑‑and I am not sure if it is one of them the member is referring to or not. There have been a number of situations where a number of smaller allocations were made and they were not priced. That means that the public was absorbing the cost of reforestation, et cetera, and obviously, as we have a better and more elaborate forestry and licensing process, those private and small cutting operations‑‑not the private ones, pardon me, but the smaller cutting operations‑‑are seeking assurances from DNR and have been assured that they will not be adversely affected by this.

There was a short period of uncertainty. I am not sure of just the exact period, but it was about three months ago at least in that time period when there was considerable uncertainty and anxiety on the part of those operators, and I believe that that has been, to a large degree, addressed.

* (1520)

Ms. Cerilli: I want to get back to the issue of the impact assessment. I am wondering if the minister can tell the committee, how long did Repap operate in that area without having a licence authorized from a public environmental impact assessment?

Mr. Cummings: They have always had a forestry licence. They have received environmental licensing on specific processes, and I am not sure that I can answer the question.

Ms. Cerilli: I will wait for the minister to consult with his staff.

Mr. Cummings: It is the time part of it that I do not think I can answer. It does not mean that they have been operating uncontrolled. It means that they have been operating within their original five‑year plan, and those have been extended.

Ms. Cerilli: But they were operating for some period without a cut licence that had been reviewed through an environment impact assessment in the public process. Is that correct?

Mr. Cummings: I think what the member is probably getting at is that she wants to know, has there been a full‑blown Clean Environment Commission review and licensing of the Repap cutting area? The forestry licensing has always been handled as forestry licensing, and there has been environmental input into bridge or river crossings and streams in that sort of situation. Repap, for a short period of time, has operated on renewals. There was, I think, one brief period when there was no renewal, but I am not sure they even did any cutting at that point or how much.

Ms. Cerilli: How does the environmental impact assessment process estimate the value of forests in their natural state that would be used to maintain soil, to provide habitat for wildlife, to ensure that there is air quality transfer through the natural process of photosynthesis, that kind of thing? How does the environmental impact assessment process estimate that kind of value for the forest in the province?

Mr. Cummings: Through any licensing process and decisions that the departments, Environment or Forestry, might make, Province of Manitoba, we have developed a biodiversity strategy; we have developed a forestry strategy, which, if the member is perhaps more familiar with the water strategy and the land‑use strategy for the province, lays out principles and guidelines, the underlying concepts that need to be applied, makes sure decisions fit within those parameters.

You are asking me, do they put a dollar‑and‑cent price tag on it? I would suggest that is probably only done in a relative sense. I think the member is asking a question that really is a macro question, if you will, and if the member wants to debate in that respect, I guess I am more than prepared to enter into it because we can also debate the energy that is required to bring sheathing that is made out of fir logs from B.C. What is the cost of freighting that in here? How much energy is destroyed by bringing that in here if we do not use our own local product?

We could argue about, why do you import bananas? Why do we not use all Manitoba‑produced product, oatmeal and steak and eggs in the morning, rather than import fruit from outside of the country? It has a whole lot to do with consumers looking at affordable products, and when you talk about, is there a demand for this product, it is obviously enormously in demand.

When we look at a forestry issue, obviously it becomes part of the protection of the biodiversity, the reforestation issues that are associated with it. There is no question that the area that is cut will be somewhat altered, as are the urban areas of this province somewhat altered from their former pristine state. [interjection] Well, the member is laughing. It is all right to sit here in the Legislature and talk about the environment that is in my back yard, but it is not all right to sit here and talk about what we see out the window.

Point of Order

Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is getting all excited about what I think is possibly a misunderstanding. I did not mean to laugh at the minister's answer. We know that the urban environment is very altered‑‑

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

* * *

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not intending to antagonize the member, although I admit to perhaps poking a little fun at her, for which I apologize, by the way.

The fact is that, to be very specific, if the member asked me, do we apply a dollar‑and‑cent value, the answer is no. If there are broader issues that are part of the consideration, they are, I think, as I stated, within the policies on biodiversity, on forestry, on land use; and, certainly, even water policies and water quality ultimately end up being impacted. In fact, that might be the first place you would feel the impacts if we do not manage a lot of our forestry issues correctly.

Ms. Cerilli: This was somewhat of a technical question. The minister has mentioned biodiversity, that there is policy in the province that we must maintain some integrity for biodiversity. What I am asking is, how does the environmental impact assessment evaluate that and estimate that?

We know that our economy does not have economic indicators that value the trees before they are cut down, for example, in a dollar‑and‑cent way, so I am not asking for that. I am asking for the minister to let us know how the government decides how much biodiversity we must maintain in a certain region, how much forest, for example, we need to maintain sufficient air quality and we are not going to compromise soil and we are going to maintain a certain amount in a given area for habitat for wildlife, all those kinds of issues, as well as the one that the minister raised with respect to the importance of forests in terms of water.

We know that there are natural values that the forest has, and what we are trying to do is not compromise that to such an extent that we are going to prevent future generations from benefiting in the way that we have and our forefathers and foremothers have. I would just ask the minister to clarify how the process that we are involved with in environmental impact assessment is going to make that determination.

I realize that there are policies through the Endangered Spaces Campaign, which have targeted 12 percent of all the ecoregions in the province to be protected. That is what we are striving for. We know that there are still a lot of concerns about the tools that we have to protect those areas in the province. So all of those issues do come into play, but just to come back to the key element of my question, how does the environmental impact assessment do this so that we have value placed on our forests in their natural state?

* (1530)

Mr. Cummings: Well, I suppose my answer will probably be unsatisfactory, but it is part of what is undertaken through the process of an environmental assessment.

I believe there might be a philosophical difference between what actually happens and what the member perhaps is seeking. I would assume she is saying that the pristine original condition of the area is the objective that must be the primary objective. I would have to say, if you are going to harvest in an area, you are not going to be able to achieve that objective. Therefore, the assessment must look at the protection of appropriate biodiversity. It must look at protection of sensitive areas. It must look at protection of the waterways and habitat in and around them, and it must look at what the long‑term reforestation policies might be, the protection of wilderness aspects of areas.

Again, I have to say, and I mean this in the most collegial way, not to be offensive, but I think there is a tremendous misunderstanding between a lot of people who live in an urban setting, as opposed to those who live in a rural area who are, and particularly in this area, already out in the bush trails cutting on some of the small allocated areas. They are already out there cutting for fence posts and for rails and for logs. They are already out there guiding people. They are already out there hunting and fishing and doing all the things that they see as a natural part of their area. To some extent, when we approach the forestry people in the Swan River and the Duck Mountain areas, it is a bit‑‑I think an analogy would be the same as going out on some of the flat prairie land around Portage la Prairie and saying, gee, you do not have a forest here anymore. Well, they did not have a forest in the first place.

These folks are used to forestry practices, are used to dealing with the issues of forestry and reforestation. I think what we need is a calmer debate around the issues of whether or not popular‑‑and I do not mean this particular discussion, I am talking about the shrillness of the debate in the broadest sense, where we have a large segment of the public that is in some respects being agitated and inflamed by things that some of us in the Legislature are saying.

I think we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about the approach that we are taking toward dealing with this industry and others. We are scaring the hell out of people, to put it bluntly. Should that be the approach that is taken by responsible leaders in this province, or should we approach it in a reasonable sense that says: Can this operation be controlled, can public health be protected and can the harvesting be managed in an environmentally compatible manner, given that we all agree‑‑I think we all agree on all sides of this table‑‑that there very likely is no question about the volumes of hardwood, i.e., poplars, that are available out there?

I am really pleading with the member across the way, if she has any influence with those who are raising fears about this issue, that we get away from raising fears and talk directly about what the issues are. The issues are the operation‑‑can the plant be regulated appropriately till it operates safely and can the forestry be managed in such a way that we protect it for the sustainable future of our youth?

I do not mean to imply that the member at this particular moment has done or said something unwise. I am saying that I would like to take the debate to a different level.

Ms. Cerilli: I have not bought a hat or a button for anybody up there. I do not know if that is the thing the minister is referring to, but I think that that is the kind of activity that is escalating the debate. All that I think a number of people are trying to do is get the information out to the public about what is going to create sustainable forestry in the region; that is what I am interested in. I am interested in making sure that we are going to have a sustainable forestry practice in this province.

I do not know if we have been very good at doing that in all areas of the province up to now. I am concerned about areas that are going to be protected in that region. It is not an all‑or‑nothing thing. I am not saying that there should not be any trees cut down in Manitoba or in that region, but I think we have to ensure that there is going to be caution exercised. What I think we are trying to do here is trying to see what the government's definition and approach to sustainable forestry and licensing is going to be, how that is going to be licensed. I think it is regrettable some of the activities that have gone on up there.

I would just like to inform the minister that I do not know if he is involved with any of the activities that have involved me and my name being used in publications that I did not produce, and my photograph being put on publications I did not produce, but I have also been, I think, maligned through all of this extensively, both by the government and by other parties; I am not sure who they are. So I just want to clarify that for the minister, that I think that a lot of the antagonism that has occurred has not been on the side that the minister has referred to or puts me on. I think that we have been quite responsible.

One final thing I want to ask the minister with respect to this area is, how does he feel‑‑I do not know if he has seen this magazine. I am not sure of the date on the magazine, but it is the Earthkeeper Magazine. It is a magazine put out, I believe, by the Canadian Environmental Network. I could be wrong; I am not sure about that.

The magazine focuses on Canadian forestry, and it has a rundown of all the provinces and where they stand. The magazine claims that the largest cut allocation in Canada, and possibly in the world, exists in Manitoba; that we have one of the worst records on reforestation; and that we have the lowest stumpage fees in the country. This is, I think, a concern.

I would ask the minister if he wants to clarify any of those claims that have been made in that magazine, and what his attitude is to those claims?

Mr. Cummings: Well, first of all, the Repap cutting area largely assumed the cutting area that was provided by the predecessors of the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) when this area was managed under the Manfor cutting rights. It was not granted anything untoward to Repap in relationship to what was there before, which was, by the way, sucking some quarter of a billion dollars annually out of the Manitoba economy.

I recognize that it was predecessors of my era that also were involved in the original concepts, but certainly when you have something that is going down the toilet year after year financially in recent years, it was obviously demonstrating that it could not be run all that well unless private enterprise had an opportunity to bring to bear some very tough decision‑making processes. In the interim, we ended up with something like a $13‑million environmental liability at the site.

In the accusations about what cutting areas are being made available, maybe the member might reflect on the fact that there are 28 mills in Ontario, 50 in Quebec, and I do not know how many in B.C. Manitoba has two mills. It does happen that one of them has access to a large area, but remember we are talking about a northern area where your rejuvenation is slower, where the yield per acre is probably obviously different, and that really points out to where we have a lot of capability to restrict access to certain areas, to eliminate access to others, and to make sure that in the end the forest management practices are acceptable.

* (1540)

In reference to stumpage fees, it should be pointed out that the agreement that was signed with Repap is one of the most proactive and encompassing reforestation agreements with any cutting company in Canada, if not in North America, where we are requiring livability at seven years of age of the replant area. That is a very significant advancement for the protection of reforestation in this province, but I think, as with other jurisdictions, we can always do more in terms of reforestation.

There is another aspect that I find frustrating, and it has to do with reforestation and access to cutting, which need to be put into perspective as well. We are being questioned here today to put into perspective reforestation, cutting restrictions, licensing. Does anybody ever acknowledge‑‑those who are primarily opposed to the natural forest harvesting processes‑‑the enormous damage that is done by fire? I had an opportunity to look through‑‑and one of the reasons that forestry management practices can be adjusted, in fact, to reduce the incidence of fires is to simply recognize the fact that where you have a high percentage of deadfall, if a fire ever gets started, it will take everything out.

If ever the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) would like to come with me on a tour of some of the burnt‑out areas, particularly in the Pine Falls area and some of the ones further north that I have not yet seen, the ones that I have seen where there has been a burnt‑out area, it is absolutely devastated compared to what the area looks like where it has been cut over. The reason is that some of these areas are on very fragile lands, and if you get a hot enough fire, there is not even any lichen left on top of the rocks for reforestation to begin. It will take, in my view‑‑and I have spent all my life dealing with nature, but I am not necessarily a forester‑‑it seems to me that it is pretty easy to show that reforestation is going to take longer on some of those burnt‑out areas.

So there is other input that goes into forest management licences that takes into consideration those types of concerns, or certainly those who are promoting the management of the forestry should be talking about those things, the set‑aside around certain areas that are unique or along rivers. In fact, there might be some question raised about whether those should be better managed. Better managed does not just mean leaving them alone, because if you get a high percentage of deadfall in that area and a fire in it, all of a sudden you will destroy it completely.

So there is that type of consideration that we never see much debate around this table on, and I think that is an aspect that needs to be brought forward occasionally. I am not saying that it is the primary factor that should be considered in restructuring reforestation requirements or in managing cutting areas, but once you are into a situation where the environment in some of these areas has been altered, then one should not always assume that it is altered in a way that it is going to be permanently negatively impacted. It might, in fact, be altered, but it might not always be in a negative way.

Ms. Cerilli: I just want to pursue this once more. By the way, I have canoed through burnt‑out areas, and I know that it certainly is disappointing when you canoe for five days and you end up in a burn you did not know was there. I have had that experience. I also know, though, that with a burn being a natural occurrence in a forest there are differences between a burnt‑out area and a clear‑cut area, but I do not want to get into that too much.

I just want to ask the minister if he is aware of the name of the company that was operating in the Manfor cut area prior to Manfor being there. It was a private company. I think it was authorized under a Conservative government to operate, and I cannot recall right now the name of that company, but I know there were a lot of environmental problems related to their operation. I think we want to come away from that era of forestry, and I think we have to come away from that era of forestry quite quickly. There is a lot of onus on governments currently to be forward looking.

I want to ask the minister if he has seen the current bill in the B.C. Legislature, the environmental assessment act, Bill 29? I have a copy with me right now. Earlier, the minister was referencing the fact that other jurisdictions in the country do not jointly review forest operations with the cut and the plant at the same time. It is quite frightening, I think, to understand that B.C., with all the controversy and the extensive forestry that have gone on in that province, has been without an act that in a consolidated way deals with environmental impact assessment on forestry practices.

I am wondering if the minister would review this bill, and if the department would consider doing a comparison between the British Columbia proposed environmental impact assessment and the one that exists in Manitoba? I do have a number of other questions related to the process, but I am going to move from the process with respect to this forestry area right now and just pass over to my Liberal colleague. I think she also has some questions on this topic, but I just ask for the minister to respond to my question first.

Mr. Cummings: I am not totally familiar with the amendments. I think I have a copy on my desk actually, but nevertheless, I understand that they sought out and actually followed our process a fair bit in the amendments of their act.

I am not sure it specifically refers to the review of forestry under that act, but we try very much to keep abreast of what is going on in other jurisdictions. I continue‑‑in fact, it is maybe my former deputy who helped write‑‑one of the ones who helped review the draft act the member is referring to, so I do not think it is too incompatible with the act we have here.

Ms. Cerilli: Just to ask the question again, I mean, would the department consider doing some kind of comparison between Manitoba's act and the B.C. act, or maybe this has been done, and we just have to get the information with other jurisdictions?

I think, for the point of clarification, this looks to me like an environmental assessment act that stands on its own. It is not an amendment to their environment act or any other act. I think it is a separate act.

Mr. Cummings: Yes, that is correct, but I would also point out that we review these changes. It is not unusual for one jurisdiction to look at what another one is doing and follow, but Manitoba is not out of step and, in fact, in many respects is considered to be quite advanced in the environmental assessment review process that we have.

I would have to say, however, in the same breath that there are a lot of jurisdictions out there that are looking to make their process more accessible. That is one of the criticisms of ours, that it is somewhat complicated. There are proponents out there who feel our process is a little baffling when they go up against it, so it speaks very much to the type of approach which we have taken, which is a sustainable development approach with the potential of a sustainable development act at some time in the future.

* (1550)

We have undertaken to do a very detailed review in that respect largely outside of individual departments to see where better alignment of the responsibilities on different departmental responsibilities, different acts, different boards and commissions, where there can be a better aligning of the process so the decision‑making process is complete and strong but not necessarily as confusing as ours can be at times.

Ms. Norma McCormick (Osborne): I have had quite an education in the last hour and a half, and I have just a few questions coming out of some of the issues.

We had the opportunity to meet with people from Louisiana‑Pacific, I believe it was in early May, and questioned them on how confident they felt about investing $80 million in a plant without an ongoing guarantee of access to sufficient wood to maintain this plant.

We also received the little package they had put out and in here it makes it clear that they are requiring approximately 900,000 cubic metres of logs to keep the plant operating at full operation. They also say in here that they are going to be taking over the cutting rights that have already been granted to Repap. In fact, the quote says: The agreement calls for Louisiana‑Pacific to harvest hardwood such as poplar in the forest area previously licensed to Repap. It goes on to say: Repap will retain the right to harvest or purchase softwoods such as spruce and pine. Then the final statement: The agreement includes the repatriation of some of the Repap timber rights.

What are they implying there by repatriation? Do you know?

Mr. Cummings: That means that the province takes back the licence, not the licence, the rights.

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

I think, without the member having asked the question, the earlier part of her comment about the ability to access softwoods when hardwoods are being harvested, et cetera, I guess as an old farmer I do not inherently see anything wrong with that. If they are accessing an area and there are appropriate softwoods available‑‑sometimes we are talking about mixed stands‑‑and does not impact the method of cutting or method of harvest or the requirements on the environment licence, it probably means, however, there is a little less wastage.

As I understand, in cutting processes, to a large extent poplar might be wasted and trampled during the cutting of softwoods; conversely, you could end up with the reverse situation. It also has a lot to do with sizing. Right now we have companies that cheerfully refer to themselves as scavengers who went in and took out what was considered undesirable material for pulpwood and/or for perhaps this system. Of course, now, with modern ability to harvest, the sizing is not as critical as it used to be for either pulping or for oriented strand board construction, although there is certainly still minimum sizes required. I do not see anything profoundly wrong with any of the comments that you just reported.

Ms. McCormick: Actually, I was not trying to imply that there was anything wrong at this point, but I did want to understand clearly that if you are taking a clear‑cut approach in a mixed stand, then you are going to have the Repap people potentially purchasing the felled softwoods that were taken during Louisiana‑Pacific's endeavour to harvest the hardwood. Is this correct?

Mr. Cummings: I think that is the case, yes.

Ms. McCormick: That being said, I was interested in discovering what kinds of volumes were to be transferred with respect to annual allowable cut. The best information I can find is from the 1991 five‑year forestry plan which indicates that there are, I believe, five forestry units which are the subject of discussion with respect to the transfer of rights. Forestry units 11 and 13, 13 being the largest one and containing the area to be logged in the Duck Mountain Provincial Park and the Roaring and Shell Rivers.

When you add up the five units, being 11, 13, 12 and 14 and then 10, the total annual allowable cut is 439, which represents about half of what would be the annual requirement for the plant.

We had questioned Louisiana‑Pacific on whether there would be sufficient wood coming from the transfer of cutting rights, and they told us that there was no problem because there was going to be some other substandard wood available to them and also some private quota holders who would contribute.

I was shocked when I actually got into the numbers to find out that what they are going to have to scavenge for is more than half of what they have as an annual requirement. Actually, there is one other factor here. Apparently, Louisiana‑Pacific will also have rights to forestry unit 43 in the Interlake. I do not have any idea of what 43 has by way of an annual allowable cut, but is it envisioned that the addition of 43 is sufficient to bring it up to the 900,000 amount that is required for the operation of the plant?

Mr. Cummings: I am not too sure that I am equipped to answer the question. I would certainly take the question as notice and perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) would take it as notice for his Estimates. I suspect that the figures the member quotes are impacted by two or three different things. One is that there may be private material available.

There may be material available from other areas that have not been referenced, i.e., Saskatchewan, but there may also be something not quite right about those figures that the member sees could be related to what is considered quantifiable for saw logs and what might be available other than that. But I cannot answer the question.

Ms. McCormick: That was the other part of my question. The annual allowable cut expressed in cubic metres, it is not clear whether that is for both hardwood and softwood.

Mr. Cummings: We could take a stab at the answer, but I would sooner that we ask Natural Resources to provide precisely what that means so that there is no confusion or misinformation.

Ms. McCormick: I guess that brings me to my question about the wisdom of going for a two‑part licence then, if some of these questions remain unanswered. It is not apparently evident that the current cutting licences or annual allowable cut as they are now described will be sufficient, and if in fact it will require a doubling of the allowable cut, then it sort of begs the question about how we could get this far in the process without having the answers to these questions.

Mr. Cummings: The member is attempting to characterize my answer as saying the information is not available. It is not available in my particular memory bank or with the staff that I have with me precisely to answer that question, but I have no hesitancy in saying that we were provided with the details that indicated that there will be a million cubic metres of harvestable material available for them, and I am pretty certain that those answers can be answered much more precisely by Natural Resources. That is where the forestry expertise lies within government, and it is not duplicated in the Department of Environment. It does not mean we do not have some capability to analyze what they bring forward, but the specifics of your question, I would ask that you inquire of Natural Resources or we will take it as notice and have them provide the answer.

* (1600)

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, perhaps, as I will also be participating in the Natural Resources Estimates, it would facilitate that process if you would advise them that I will be questioning in this area.

The other aspect, though, does relate to your department, and that is something that my colleague from Radisson has already raised. Repap's cutting rights were in fact granted prior to or without a requirement for an environmental impact assessment. Would it be your plan, when the question of the forestry licensing comes up with Louisiana‑Pacific, to require an EIA on the forest use?

Mr. Cummings: The area is licensed on a renewable basis today. As soon as we have their long‑range plans in hand, we will do a complete assessment.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, when we met with Louisiana‑Pacific in the same meeting in which we questioned them about the wisdom of proceeding on this construction without the guarantees, they indicated one reason that they did not wish to go into the double‑stream licensing process was because they would be required to produce a 10‑year forestry management plan and they would not have the time to do adequate work in that area or to do justice to a proper plan in the time line that they had set for themselves to go through the approval process for the plant. At that point in time, I questioned them on what was involved in producing‑‑or what they envisioned their 10‑year plan to include and was not clear from their answers as to what they envisioned.

Do you believe that Louisiana‑Pacific understands that there is an environmental impact assessment potentially to be required of them in that second process?

Mr. Cummings: Yes. I suppose the short answer is that we will tell them what they will be expected to produce. In other words, the guidelines will be laid down. It does not mean we will do it for them. It means that we will lay down the guidelines on which they will have to produce the information to meet.

It was probably fairly candid on their part to respond in that manner, but it does not mean that we have somehow lost control of the process. We, in fact, have issued them now I think the initial guidelines‑‑pardon me, I got one jump ahead of where we are actually at. We have given them the Abitibi guidelines to look at as an example of what they will be expected to deal with. We have not issued the guidelines for that area.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, if I understand correctly then, depending on the outcome of the hearings to deal with construction of the plant‑‑what would you anticipate to be the time line for engaging Louisiana‑Pacific in the preparation of the forestry management plan?

Mr. Cummings: I would guess that Abitibi and Repap were both examples of where it takes a lot of time up front to get going. We anticipate that they will have a year or a year and a half's worth of work to do. We will be issuing the guideline‑‑we will be engaging them in getting started on that within a matter of months.

Ms. McCormick: So I am hearing you then to say that within one to one and a half years, it is likely that they will be, if not able to produce the plan, at least actively in the process of producing one.

Mr. Cummings: Well, actually, our expectations were a little higher than that. We expect that they would have something pretty complete by that time, bearing in mind that‑‑not from a regulatory point of view, but from an overall point of view, I think we have to acknowledge that these are ongoing plans.

As I understand the way forestry management plans evolve, they need to be changed and updated regularly. You cannot predict where a burn might show up or other reasons‑‑drought. Very often plans change if insects have moved into an area. All those things can require changing in a plan. Nevertheless, they will have to do a pretty detailed plan, overall plan in the first year or 18 months.

Ms. McCormick: Yes, I think what I was trying to get at here was that my concern arises from the identification of cutting rights to less than half of what they would need. It seems to me that if that is going to become a problem, better it should become evident sooner rather than later, given that Mother Nature may also have something to say about what is cutable and what not.

I guess the last area of questioning I would like to go into is with respect to a commitment to an overall forest strategy and as it relates back to the cutting in provincial parks and provincial forests. At this point in time, it is my understanding that only 8 percent of the Duck Mountain area is actually protected from cutting rights and that the licence transferred from Repap to Louisiana‑Pacific, particularly with respect to forestry unit 13, allows for a cut of 265,500 cubic metres coming out of the Duck Mountain Provincial Park. Secondly, the concern is for the FU 14, which allows for 84,500 cubic metres and is in the Porcupine Provincial Forest.

Can you tell me what you know of your department's involvement in the development of a forestry strategy for Manitoba and specifically with respect to your department's position with respect to logging in provincial parks and designated forestry areas?

Mr. Cummings: I guess I would like to take a minute to answer this, because something that always is a bit of a rub for me is that when Abitibi had its forestry licences removed from Atikaki, what happened was there was a lot of self‑congratulation and credit taken for moving it out of there, but it was moved into another park.

I have to go back to my other statement that I made earlier, which is that areas that were anticipated and were designated harvesting areas‑‑and in many cases have already been harvested once; that is how pioneers in that area made a living, frankly‑‑they supplied my area with building material, and other parts of the province. They were always considered cutting areas. I do not blame the member for putting it in this context, but I always bristle when someone does, because while they are in parks, they were always designated cutting areas. Therefore, the criticism we always receive that we are allowing cutting in parks, we are one of the few areas in the country that ended up with these multiple‑use designations.

* (1610)

The Department of Environment has a significant degree of input through, I guess there is a tack involved in terms of the development of the Special Places program. Certainly, we were not the lead department in all aspects. Forestry, I think, took the lead for obvious reasons on forest management, but the Department of Environment is part of all of these strategies basically because they are environmentally‑‑there is an environmental impact on each of them.

I will have to acknowledge that I do not know how many staff or who was assigned except that I see the work coming out the other end through the Sustainable Development Committee of Cabinet and through the round table, and developing all of these strategies really speaks to the fact you need a multidimensional and‑‑essentially, you need input from all of the departments in order to make it work, or you are going to overlook something to start off with, and secondly, it probably creates much better environmental awareness in each of the other departments if they are working, and in many cases, even as a lead, in dealing with some of the issues that you referenced.

We have DNR working on a 20‑year forestry plan for the province. We participate in that plan, and there is a public process for approval of a plan for each‑‑oh, I am sorry, that is for the park areas that I am referencing.

So I think the matter is being addressed, but it is obviously one where there is going to be some ongoing public debate for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think that the history lesson is valuable and I appreciate the recognition that we have perhaps come late to the debate about whether or not there should be areas which are considered to be sacrosanct, and again, I suppose that if we have confidence in an overall strategy, then whether or not you allow timber stands in things called parks or forests, provincial forests, becomes less important so long as there is confidence that the overall forest resources are being well managed.

I think that at this point in time, there is still some concern in the public's mind about what the overall plan is. It will perhaps become easier for the public to take a meaningful stand with respect to logging in provincial areas once that whole picture is known.

That being said, the other area I was interested in pursuing was with respect to the reissuing of some of the cutting permits to some of the local loggers in the Parklands and the broader area. There has been some concern stated, whether it is justified or not, that there have been permits which have been denied for renewal in those areas, and this concern has been brought forward to us with respect to where this fits, whether those permits are now being transferred to other people.

No doubt this is the subject of the native claim in the courts, so you may be constrained in terms of how much you can comment on it, but does the department have a role in reviewing or recommending around the smaller permits for cutting?

Mr. Cummings: Yes, the specific allocation is the responsibility of Forestry, but the Department of Environment has input through a local resource management approach. If there are specific environmental issues around harvesting in one of the cutting areas, then the Department of Environment officials would have input to deal with that matter.

I do not mean to belabour the point, but the member referenced whether or not there are areas of the parks that are, in fact, sacrosanct as protected areas and there are. There are sections‑‑and I would invite the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) to correct me, given his experience in Natural Resources, however, it seems to me that as a percentage of land base set aside for parks and for permanent protection and for biodiversity protection under Special Places that Manitoba ranks relatively well in terms of total numbers of acres set aside as compared to those acres available.

So it is very frustrating, and I have said many times that the unfortunate part about this is that if people are unwilling to accept the fact that there can be a multiple‑use portion to a park, that what we will eventually be driven to, what governments of whatever stripe will be driven to is they will adjust park boundaries because there are certain legal obligations involved. There are legitimate operations that have been operating there.

I always find it a little ironic when people talk about the pristine bounds of Wasagaming Park. My, well not mine directly but the people in that community, our pioneers, harvested that area heavily. It is not like as if it is in its original pristine state. A good portion of that part was harvested in the early settlement days of this country.

Ms. McCormick: I know, I agree entirely with what you are saying, and, in fact, many forests were cut to produce farmland which we now rely on very heavily.

I think, though, the concern for the people who, in fact, come out sounding like they are advocates for pristine wilderness, they are also now concerned about the whole deforestation issue as it relates to other global climatic issues and those kinds of things. That is not the direction I would like to take this debate into, but I do think I would like to just respond to the minister to say that we now know a lot more than we used to know, and the important thing is not what we know but what we do with what we know.

It was my intention in absence of my colleague from Radisson to move beyond Swan River but before moving on to Abitibi Price which is the other area I would like to explore with you, I just would like to take the opportunity, as you have raised the issue of the Endangered Spaces Program, to register a concern that has been brought forward by the World Wildlife Federation and others with respect‑‑first of all, this is not intended to be critical, and I think you are right that Manitoba has a national reputation for having made the commitment early to the 12 percent or 13 percent protection. The area of concern, though, that remains for many people is the criteria which are being applied in the designation of those endangered spaces and how we designate. Could you describe for me the process of determining what criteria are applied in terms of the designation and what role the Department of Environment has in that criteria‑setting process?

* (1620)

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as a minister I get several perspectives on this, as I indicated before, on some of the sensitive areas that we deal with.

From the department's point of view, this is led by the Department of Natural Resources. The sustainable development co‑ordination unit has a role in it as well. We contribute any knowledge or information that we have from our people, some of whom have their roots back in the Department of Natural Resources, frankly, and understand the issues, I think, fairly well. DNR is the lead department.

In terms of the criteria that were laid down, I guess Manitoba has made its commitment based on the original criteria that were laid down. Then there was a selection committee or an advisory committee. I do not remember who was on it; it really does not matter, but some observation was made about, Manitoba was not moving quickly enough or had not moved to meet its obligations.

(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)

We brought, I believe, Monte Hummel and his advisory people, asked them to come back and meet again with the appropriate people in government. My memory is a little foggy here, because this occurred a while ago. As I recall, the overall flavour of the discussion was that we understood what would be accepted as designated areas under the Endangered Spaces. For a short time there was a disagreement between them and our province as to what met that criteria. That has now been resolved as I understand it. In fact, it has been agreed that we met their criteria as envisaged. I think that kind of gave us a big shot upwards again in what is recognized as areas that we have set aside appropriately.

Interestingly enough, one of the things that is probably the hardest to find in Manitoba‑‑mind you, we are not totally a prairie province or never were‑‑is pristine tall grass prairie. That is, generally speaking, some of your prime agricultural land. It is all very difficult to find. There is 11 percent that might be available anymore. The fact was that not each province was required to come up with the total quota.

There may be other jurisdictions in the country that can come up with good examples or larger volumes of examples of that, but Manitoba has large areas that are very acceptable to be set aside. I have not been involved in any discussion in the last three or four months, but I think the process is fairly well advanced. I could, in fact, get the member more information on that if she is interested.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chair, I would just be interested in knowing when this breakthrough occurred. It will help me to see if the timing is after I met with the World Wildlife Federation and the Endangered Spaces Campaign people who, at the point of that meeting, were in fact still registering concern.

Mr. Cummings: I will get up‑to‑date information for the member, but as I recall there is some disagreement out there among some of the naturalists and conservation groups with Mr. Hummel in whether or not the criteria that he laid down were the appropriate ones.

But I think, as I understand the discussion, there was some concern about what criteria should be applied to indigenous uses of the land. It strikes me that is one that should be able to be settled appropriately.

I think there was also some disagreement over what flexibility should be allowed within the legislation for uses of the land. There were three. Mining was one of the uses that could not be allowed, and there were a couple of other uses that were certainly not to occur. But beyond that, it was always our view that there should be some flexibility allowed within the designation.

I understand that Mr. Hummel is in agreement with us. We might not agree with some of the advocacy groups out there, however.

Ms. McCormick: I am prepared now to move on beyond Louisiana‑Pacific and ask for some information on the progress of the transfer of the ownership of the mill at Abitibi‑Price to its new ownership and for an update on the plans to bring that mill operation within the guidelines.

Mr. Cummings: Again, I might not be the best one to ask these questions of, although by all of the other implications that Environment has with this area, I have some information about the process.

I cannot speak directly to the financing aspect of it. Financing will have to be in place obviously, or it will not go. However, there are a lot of expectations that are hanging on the refinancing and the reconstruction, if you will, of the mill out there. Almost all of the expenditures early on are environmentally related, which makes it good news for us from a regulatory point of view. I think it typifies the argument that if you operate in an environmentally sound way, you will be operating efficiently.

There are a lot of efficiencies that they can bring to the mill which result from improvement of their environmental management of the mill. Just improving their wood room, of course, may not be part of that, but in improving their wood room they are also going to improve an awful lot of other things that they do plus they expect to be able to continue to be competitive to sell into the American markets, so they need a high percentage of recyclable content. That is good news that they are considering construction in that area. But the very first investments, as I understand it, will be directly related to environmental improvement.

By the way, I have not seen anything and I do not know if forestry has anything that would contradict this, but it seems to me that their forestry management practices, generally speaking, have not been in question. They have a reasonably good record of reforestation and management of their cuts. They have done some rejigging of how they cut. They experimented with a number of things trying different methods of preservation of habitat, different configurations of some of their cut areas that would enhance and/or improve the long‑range viability of the regeneration, whether it is natural regeneration or replant.

* (1630)

Point of view of licensing, they will soon be presenting us with their environmental impact assessment, as I understand it. Federal extension was given re The Fisheries Act. They now have about a year and a half left to meet those regulations, and our requirements will be compatible with the federal regulations. We now have the forestry stakeholder committee in place which was an outstanding issue from the original licensing process based on the fact that while it was under appeal, I did not appoint that committee. That has now been settled.

Ms. McCormick: The letter which sets out the membership for the SAC went out with a reply date by the 27th of May to have organizations indicate their representation. To your knowledge, has the SAC been fully named in terms of the individuals?

Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we are waiting on a few that had to have an organization meeting before they could nominate their people. We are not going to preclude them if they do not have it to us, but we wanted a fairly quick turnaround so that a meeting could be held.

Ms. McCormick: I would like to ask a question with respect to a section of Abitibi‑Price's annual report in a section called environmental compliance. It says, other than with respect to the Stephenville and Pine Falls mill, the company has obtained extensions of the dates by which the company must comply with new federal effluent discharge regulations from the end of 1993 to 1995. It goes on to say, the company believes that a similar extension will be granted with respect to an application regarding the Pine Falls mill. In order to provide an opportunity to implement and assess the effectiveness of newly developed technologies and improve the competitiveness of its mill, the company is seeking a further two‑year extension to the end of 1997 for certain of its mills.

Do you know if Pine Falls is one of the mills that is requesting an extension of the federal government deadlines to 1997?

Mr. Cummings: They presently have a two‑year extension. I do not think they are going beyond that, but I do not know. To the end of what period, do we know? I am told that, in fact, the extension includes the fact that they must have indicated the purchase of certain equipment within a couple of months of this date, and so they are about 18 months away from being at the end of the extension that they presently have. I am not aware of them having applied further. The two‑year extension must have been granted since that report was compiled. It was granted early this year, I believe.

Ms. McCormick: If I can interpret your answer then, your understanding is that the original extension which took them beyond 1993 to the end of 1995 is sufficient and that a further two‑year extension is not being contemplated, or at least to your knowledge, not being contemplated.

Mr. Cummings: I think there is some confusion about the term "original extension." This is the first extension. They did not get an extension of the extension, if I understand your question correctly. I know that likely this is in the context of other mills having received extensions earlier and then told they could not meet it. Because Pine Falls was being considered for closure by Abitibi, they probably did not have any reason to apply for an extension. I believe the extension has been applied for since there has become more clarity to the employee buy out.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would ask if the minister would be willing to assist me in getting clarification on this. You might have more success than I would determining the intentions of the company.

Clearly, what I am asking is whether or not they intend to meet the federal effluent discharge regulations by the end of 1995.

Mr. Cummings: Well, I do not want to precommit myself or the company to something that I misunderstand, but candidly at this juncture, it is my understanding that it is their intention to meet that deadline. I would be the first to indicate that I know that sometimes with construction and environmental improvements, those deadlines might be awfully hard to meet.

It has everything to do with the ability of the new company to get its money together and get on with the job. If they get their financing together and start moving appropriately, there is a great deal of commitment on the part of the employees out there to make this work. They know that they are on a short leash, because every dollar they invest has to start bringing them back something or it will be a lost dollar.

Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in fact, I think that is why this is so important to Manitobans, as we understand that the provincial money going into this is for compliance, and if the money that has been appropriated for this activity is not sufficient to ensure compliance, first of all, and, secondly, within the time lines that are expected, then I think it is important that we know that.

So all I am asking is for you to check out the point and humour me and get back with an answer.

Mr. Cummings: It is the balance of the money, I guess, that I was referring to and their ability to have that on the line at the same time. Yes, we are watching, and we will make a note of it. It may take me a little while to respond, but we will respond.

Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just for my own interest and understanding and perhaps that of the members of the committee, much has been made of the separation of the two environmental processes, one with respect to the mill and the other with the forestry management plan and access to that.

I think it needs to be put on the record that by legislation and by law, the environment shop is not the agency that has the responsibility to determine such matters as available cut or the availability of the resource. That determination, quite frankly, is the specific legislative authority of the director of forestry in the Department of Natural Resources, much like the responsibility of the director of fisheries to determine what is sustainable harvest out of a particular lake, Lake Winnipeg in terms of fish quantities, or the director of wildlife in terms of setting sustainable hunting regulations and so forth. I know that the impression is being left that the environmental process, which will later deal with the forestry question, that how can that be? How would the company commit or invest significant dollars if that is still an open question?

* (1640)

It should be clearly understood that the availability of the product is not an open question. That determination of the forestry resources has already been made. That determination has been made by the director of forestry. What is very much open to question is whether or not the conditions under which that resource can be accessed, which will be very much influenced by the department, by the clean environment process and eventually will lead to a licence‑‑may well put conditions to that harvest which may or may not be acceptable to the company. So that question is still to be resolved.

The minister has on different occasions referred to such issues as what kind of activity will be permitted under the licensing of the environmental licences that spells out these conditions, the actual physical access to the area, whether it means roads, or the kind of treatment of sensitive areas within the cutting area, rivers, creeks, the question of determination of not accessing certain park areas. In this instance, it could well be officials from within the Parks Branch who will be discussing or making presentations to the environment commission in that regard.

So it is the how and the environmentally acceptable manner and the way in which the resource will be accessed that are at question. I just wanted to put that on the record. It is not a question, at least in my understanding, that the Clean Environment Commission process will laterally deal with the access to the resource, but is principally to determine whether or not the resource is there. That is the professional purview of the foresters within the Department of Natural Resources and even, more importantly, by our own legislation under The Forest Act.

It is The Forest Act that provides the permits, the forestry minister who provides the access and determines what constitutes an allowable cut, what does not constitute an allowable cut. The department of forestry has an ongoing major expense, their ongoing inventory of Manitoba forestry which takes into account the problems of disease or problems of burns and so forth.

My colleague the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), as a former Natural Resources minister, is aware of this. But it is specifically the legislative responsibility of the director of forestry to make these allocations. How they will be accessed becomes very much the purview of the Department of Environment and specifically the Clean Environment Commission which will attach the conditions of licensing that operation.

If the conditions are such that are not deemed possible or acceptable to the company then I suppose the issue is up in the air. But I think it is worthwhile to put that on the record so that committee members, particularly those who also have the responsibilities of examining the Estimates of the Minister of Natural Resources‑‑that some of the questions that I heard here this afternoon directed at the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) are legislatively, quite frankly, more specifically the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger).

Ms. McCormick: I appreciate that clarification. You know I am kind of new to this, and this is the first time I have gone through the Estimates process. Just in my own defence, rather than allowing it to appear on the record that I did not know what I was doing this afternoon, I did want to determine from the Minister of Environment those factors which went into the decision making to have a sequential licensing process. I do agree that those questions that I asked are appropriately brought up in the Natural Resources Estimates. In fact, we may expedite that process, because now I am on the record with that set of questions. When I ask them again, they will be prepared to give me the answers. So I thank you for the lesson.

Ms. Cerilli: I want to pick up on some of the issues still related to forestry, stemming from what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is saying, knowing that he was the minister responsible for Natural Resources for quite some time. I think one of the things that is happening, though, is we are finding that we have to challenge the process because it often does not ensure that we are going to have sustainability, and the environmental impact assessment has to be, I think, broad enough to ensure that there is not going to be a situation where we do not have a process that is going to consider the reality of the situation. Let us put it that way.

I have had a number of concerns expressed to me regarding the transfer of the mill in Pine Falls, and considering that there are only 13 minutes left, can the minister clarify what specifically must be done to meet the milestone of the federal transitional authority under The Fisheries Act by June 21, which is‑‑what?‑‑not even two weeks away?

Mr. Cummings: The member's date is probably more accurate than I referenced earlier. What they have to demonstrate is that they, in fact, ordered certain equipment. I had referenced that being within a month, but I accept the date you state. It just means that it has to be sooner than later.

Ms. Cerilli: That is all that they have to do is order the secondary effluent treatment equipment?

Mr. Cummings: The specifics of the equipment, I guess I will not get into, but I do not think there is a problem with that process. We are talking about a two‑year order, and early on in the order they must demonstrate that they have, in fact, ordered particular equipment.

An order does not constitute just tabling your phone call. I suppose it does constitute placing an order for construction of material. That involves a financial commitment which, I take it, would be binding on the proponents.

So I disagree a little bit with the statement, is that all they have to do? I think it means a demonstrated financial commitment, unless the department can tell me differently here in a minute. I am getting a nod in the affirmative that that is in fact what would occur.

In fact, I am informed that the term is proof of purchase, which goes beyond just an order. It means they have to put down the money.

* (1650)

Ms. Cerilli: So are we going to be guaranteed that this equipment is going to be purchased by Abitibi‑Price?

Mr. Cummings: No. It will be purchased by the new employee‑owned company.

Ms. Cerilli: But, currently, the transitional authorization is allowing Abitibi‑Price to continue operating there. That is currently who is still managing and operating that mill. Is that right?

Mr. Cummings: I guess the extension is‑‑I would have to look at the precise legal responsibilities here, but I am confident that it is the new company that is buying the equipment. The member is asking me, who has the operating extension? Is it Abitibi or is it the new company? I would suggest during this transitional phase that that is not necessarily a big deal one way or the other. I think the two are somewhat interchangeable. If the member is thinking about ongoing liability, which is where I usually am told the rubber hits the road, and who accepts the liability from what day forward or from a certain date backward, there is always some question that, goodness knows, if it will ever be settled about the historic liability of the area.

Abitibi, obviously, is responsible. Whether or not there will be a severance between them and the new entity, I suppose, is a question that is asked, but the new company is definitely ordering the equipment, as I understand it, because the upgrade is part of the takeover. The member, I think, is implying, is there something falling between the cracks here or somebody losing an ability to leverage and enforcement? I may not be able to give you the precise‑‑the agreement that the obligation has undertaken to the federal government under, but, ultimately, it is going to be the new operation that is going to have to live up to these standards.

Ms. Cerilli: What I am getting at is that the minister is saying what I was afraid I was getting at; it is that Abitibi‑Price is not going to have any financial responsibility, even though they are still operating that mill right now. As I hear it, they are making still a million dollars a month profit from that operation, and they are not investing any money into the effluent treatment, the effluent treatment to protect the water quality of the river. Is that the case?

Mr. Cummings: The member has referenced a number. I am not going to make any comment on a number that is grabbed out of the air where our goal here is to get the plant cleaned up. I think the new company is quite capable of striking reasonable negotiations with the old parent company and getting on with the reconstruction of the plant. Frankly, the plant is going to be shut down. It is kaput, and if the new company does not take over and clean it up, it will be shut down.

Perhaps, I am not bringing enough clarity to your question. Part of that is because we are not the enforcing party in terms of the federal guideline and extension that is involved. I am sure I can find out more detail about the precise responsibility, but I do not think that I or any of the staff here can just answer that on the record in a way that would be precise enough to be kept in perpetuity. So you will have to let us get that information before I respond specifically to your question, but the point is that the job is being done at the conditions of the interim licence which are appropriate.

But I would question what you are implying. If the company is getting out of the business, who is accepting responsibility for the environmental upgrade? It sure is not going to be Abitibi for too long because they are getting out. They are gone. If the company is making money, the only reason would be because they have not got any depreciation left to allocate against that mill. They are keeping it together with barbed wire and chewing gum.

Ms. Cerilli: This is what makes me kind of upset about this issue, is that I may be‑‑I am out on my figure. I know that I have heard reports that there is that much profit in one month since the initiation of the agreement to buy it out. I do not have a problem, certainly, with a company making a profit like that as long as they are going to turn some of that around and protect the local communities and the environment where they are working.

What makes it even more disconcerting is that now we have an approximately $30 million loan guarantee‑‑correct me if I am wrong‑‑and, as I understand it, that money is going to go to the new managers of the mill and they are going to use that money to purchase the effluent treatment equipment. So, at the end of the day, it is the people of Manitoba who are putting the money up to protect this river, and the company that has been operating there for decades is getting off without having to invest any money into the upgrading, even though the transitional authorization has indicated that is what was supposed to happen, as I understood it. So there seems to be a gap here, as the minister said.

Mr. Cummings: I think there is something missing in the discussion here. First of all, Abitibi has said they are going to close the plant. Taking it from there, the purchasers will be purchasing nothing but dust if they purchase a closed plant, because one of the things that makes the sale acceptable is that they are able to get their book of business. So they have to buy an ongoing operation. For example, one of the places that they sell is into the Rocky Mountain‑Denver area. That is where one of their large customers is, besides the Winnipeg Free Press, et cetera.

The member is trying to make the scenario that says that the company is making money hand over fist while others are preparing to rebuild the plant. There is no doubt some benefit accruing to both sides in that aspect. The one benefit is as I described. The other one is that the company no doubt has not got any money to depreciate against that plant right now.

If there is some fluke of the market that I have not noticed that pulp companies and paper companies are making any enormous amounts of profit at this juncture‑‑but I think the member is making quite a leap of faith if she is assuming that, because the new operators are undertaking to do the upgrade for the protection of the river, it has all of a sudden created windfall profits for the company that is getting out. Remember that the company that is getting out is really not getting very much for its assets, if anything at all, and with that the new company is picking up the cutting rights, the reforestation, the workforce, as the workers themselves that are refinancing.

When we are talking about the province being put at risk‑‑the taxpayer of the province‑‑I suppose that is a comment that has to be moderated by the fact that there is upwards of, I think, 1,200 jobs that are at stake here. They are finished out there if they do not get on with this upgrade, and we, frankly, morally at least, supported the federal government providing an extension so that we could in fact get on with the cleanup. So I am not sure that I can argue against the member's statement, nor do I think she has been able to substantiate it. I think more importantly is what is happening out there. She is speculating that the company is making money, while the new company is getting ready to do the upgrade and the repair. I do not inherently think that that is a bad chain of events.

Ms. Cerilli: We have a company that is operating a mill that has no overhead. The employees have been working there without a contract for almost a year. They are going to get $40,000‑‑or sorry, $40 million, I think it is, of preferred shares and they want that, as I understand it, before they give up complete authority on a plant, as the minister said, that would be dust. So I think this is not a pretty picture.

The Environment minister, Ruth Grier, in Ontario announced on February 2, 1993, a comprehensive clean water regulation targeting a wide range of substances from Ontario's 26 pulp and paper mills, including organochlorines. This was written up in the February '93 issue of Hazardous Materials Management magazine.

I am wondering why we did not do this in Manitoba, or why are we not doing this in Manitoba to sort of partner the federal transitional authorizations and federal Fisheries legislation? I know we only have two mills, as the minister has referenced, in Manitoba, but still.

* (1700)

Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The time being 5 p.m. and time for private members' hour, I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. This committee will resume at 8 p.m.

HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION

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 Highways. We are on item 1.(g), page 91 of the Estimates manual. Would the minister's staff please enter the Chamber.

Mr. Daryl Reid (Transcona): Madam Chairperson, when we left off at the last part of the Estimates process for Highways and Transportation, we were dealing with Occupational Health and Safety. I will go to that part after a moment.

I have a question relating to an earlier question that I had asked. I had the opportunity to go back and check Hansard, and I want to bring this to the minister's attention because there appears to be a discrepancy in the figures that he provided for me at the last Estimates sitting, and that is dealing with the number of women, the number of First Nations people, the number of disabled people and the number of visible minorities that are employed within the Department of Highways and Transportation.

I have looked back in the Hansard for the last sitting of this department, and the figures the minister gave me indicate that there has been an increase of various percentages for each of these categories. When I reviewed the statistics on the year over year, there seems to have been a drop in the statistics.

I am going to read out the numbers that were provided in the previous Highways and Transportation Estimates last year. The numbers that were given by the then‑Minister of Highways and Transportation indicated that there were 447 women in the department, that there were 108 First Nations people, that there were 27 disabled and 27 visible minorities. All of these figures do not jibe with the figures the minister has given to me for this year's; in fact, if you compare the year over year, there has been a decrease in this year's numbers. I want to know how the numbers the minister gives me can indicate there has been an increase; when you compare year over year, that is not the case.

Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Highways and Transportation): Madam Chairperson, I think what the member has probably identified is that over the course of from last year to this year the total number of employees is down a little bit. That is why he will see actual numbers of, say, female employees being less this year than last year, but the amount of total employees is down fairly significantly, so that the actual percent of women in the total work force is a little higher this year than it was last year. So it is the total figure relative to the numbers in the category.

Mr. Reid: It is obvious, then, that when the minister gave the percentage, it was based on the total, but the point I am trying to make here is that there has been a reduction in each of these categories, which is what I would have thought would have been contrary to the affirmative action program. We had 434 women that were in the department for this year and in the previous year we had 447, so we have obviously lost‑‑the number of women has decreased by 13.

We have seen a reduction in the number of disabled people by three and the number of visible minorities by five, so our affirmative action program is obviously not functioning up to what one would think would be the intended purpose of it.

I am not going to make a long and belaboured point of this, but I just want to draw it to the minister's attention. If we are going to have an affirmative action program, it only seems reasonable to me that there would be some increases, not only in the percentages, as we have a sliding or decreasing overall employment within the department, but in the actual numbers themselves.

We cannot have an affirmative action program, if we are going to see a decrease in the number of employees that are employed in each of those categories, so I just draw that to the minister's attention. I will not belabour that point.

To go back to the Occupational Health and Safety, when we were talking in the last Estimates, the minister said he was going to supply me with some statistics, I believe, a sheet of year‑over‑year comparisons. Has the minister had a chance to put together any of that information?

Mr. Findlay: Yes, Madam Chair, there is a page here somewhere. I will distribute a compilation of information to both parties as requested the last time we were sitting.

* (1430)

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the information. The Occupational Health and Safety subdepartment, I believe, also does environmental monitoring. It is obvious that we have, with our yards that we have throughout the province, fuel and other products, maybe hazardous products, stored onsite. Do we do our regular audits for those products, and if we had to make any alterations to our equipment or the way our operations are taking place to deal with the environmental aspects?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member is asking about whether we do an audit on particularly fuels stored in various yard sites. The answer is that on a monthly basis each site is audited with regard to knowing the volumes used and the volumes left, volumes received. So there is a continuous management approach to be sure that we know if there is anything that is unaccounted for.

Mr. Reid: What have those audits determined?

Mr. Findlay: The member asks if we have any sites where there are known spills. Basically, the answer is no. There are not any spills of magnitude. One has to understand that day to day there has to be little things happen once in a while. There is a Midland site, an asphalt site here in Winnipeg that some analysis is now being done on, which is an ongoing process.

Mr. Reid: Can the minister expand on that, a bit about that Midland site, what the concerns are for the department that are currently under investigation, if I understand him correctly?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the Midland site is a location where asphalt has been stored over a some 40‑year period, and then naturally in the process of that period of time with a little less than today's environmental considerations there has been expectation that there have been some spills of this, that or the next thing. The site is no longer used for asphalt.

Mr. Reid: I might be wrong on this, and the minister can correct me if I am. Is it not possible to recycle some of the asphalt product that may have been picked up as part of the construction or maintenance process so that it can be recycled?

Well, if we have been storing asphalt and rejected asphalt product or other products on that site, is it not possible to recycle some of the asphalt itself into further maintenance or construction programs utilizing asphalt so that we can reduce the amount that is currently stored on that site, or is there some way to dispose of it?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, staff tell me it is waste. It is bits and pieces of asphalt mixed with soil. There is little or no recyclable capability or use.

Mr. Reid: I must say that in the last Estimates there were more extensive answers given by his predecessor. I did not have to pull the information out so much as we are seeming to have to do here. Now, there may be some reasons why he does not want to give any further information relating to this particular site, and maybe it is more appropriate to deal with this in another fashion later, maybe off the record if there is something that he does not to talk about at this time, but that is the impression I am being left with here.

Mr. Findlay: Well, I do not know what the member is trying to get at, but he cannot expect me to be running around sniffing at every sight and know precisely what is going on in every square yard. I mean, what the staff are telling me is that an environmental analysis of the particular site is being done. It is ongoing. We do not have the results. I am not going to speculate that there is a problem when we do not know that there is one. I can assure the member that staff have assured me that any reuseable asphalt is reused, and in the process of the analysis, we will find out if there is a problem and what the magnitude of that problem is.

Mr. Reid: I will not prolong that point.

Does the department have an Employee Assistance Program in place? We have some 2,200, 2,300 employees in the department. Is there a program in place to assist employees with problems that might be detected or problems that they might come forward with by way of either alcohol or drug abuse or personal problems? I know in other large companies or organizations, they have such programs. Does this department have any program like that?

* (1440)

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the Civil Service Commission has these kinds of programs available. Any employees in the department who come forward with those kinds of problems are referred to Civil Service Commission programs for appropriate action.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that.

Last year, the previous Minister of Highways talked about audiogram testing that was taking place for employees within the department, most likely operating heavy equipment, and that there was some audiometric testing of approximately 500 employees and they were going to look at reviews or amendments of the department's health and safety procedures. What has become of that? Have we taken any further steps to assist the employees and to prevent any hearing loss as a result of their occupations, relating to their activities in the department?

Mr. Findlay: The member is right in the fact that there is an ongoing testing program for employees to measure hearing and hearing loss. I am sure the member is aware that today's modern workplace employees are requested and suggested strongly that they wear appropriate hearing protection on certain kinds of jobs. We are not aware that there has been anything significant in the process of additional hearing loss of employees in the workplace. The Occupational Health and Safety committee has not come forward with any recommendations for changing the workplace relative to the measurements that have been made. I would suggest that anybody who felt that they had hearing loss would obviously seek comments from a doctor as to what to do. We all know that hearing loss is progressive over the course of ageing, too.

It is an ongoing testing program. At this point nothing unusual has come out of it. Certainly it accentuates to employees, it suggests work‑safety wearing of appropriate hearing protection is a good idea.

Mr. Reid: The minister mentioned a minute ago about health and safety committees, I think, if I understood him correctly. I take it, then, that we have health and safety committees within the department, in various areas of the department. Is it a cochaired type of committee, and do those committees report to the minister's office or to the department heads, or how does it function? Are there any outstanding issues that have been long‑standing in nature that have not been resolved to this point?

Mr. Findlay: There are many, many committees. There is really one in every major workplace. There is one in every maintenance yard, and there are some 80 maintenance yards across the province, every garage, airports, materials testing labs, so there are many, many committees and they all report back through the ADM of Administrative Services.

Mr. Reid: So I take it then that there have been no long‑standing, unresolved issues as a part of the Workplace Health and Safety Committee then.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the committee has been very successful in resolving any disputes or difficulties that arise; in other words, a nip‑them‑in‑the‑bud sort of thing.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. It is a good sign that the administration is attempting to work with the employees of the department to resolve the issues, because I know by my past experience that was not always the case, so it is good to see that the department is able to solve those problems when they come forward.

I will pass this part.

Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(g) Occupational Health and Safety (1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $122,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $45,400.

Mr. Reid: I have one question there. Can the minister explain the capital expenditures of‑‑I think, it is $3,000?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, that amount of capital is budgeted for purchasing testing equipment and maybe audiovisual equipment for use in the various regions. You might say it is a bit of a catchall for small items that are needed for part of the Occupational Health and Safety aspect.

Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(g)(2) Other Expenditures $45,400‑‑pass.

Item 2. Operations and Maintenance (a) Maintenance Program.

* (1450)

Mr. Reid: I have quite a number of questions under the Maintenance Program section. Have there been any changes take place within the Maintenance portion of the department dealing with the way we prepare for our seasonal maintenance requirements, whether they be summer or winter? I guess in particular here, I should be asking questions relating to the winter program. Have we reduced the number of employees within the department that do the maintenance portion, and is there some program in place to move away from department maintenance people and move towards a private contractor to do some of the work for the maintenance department?

Mr. Findlay: The member asks about employees, and certainly he is well aware that there were some temporary layoffs last winter from November 1 to April 18. The vast majority of those employees were called back to work this spring. I think the member must also realize that our mission is to get the maximum amount of work done at the lowest cost to the taxpayer. I guess it probably was a very good move to have done that last winter because it was a winter of relatively low winter maintenance. There was not a lot of snow, and there were not very many storms.

So the maintenance standard is what the department tries to maintain and tries to get it done at the lowest possible cost. At certain times and places, private contractors will be called in if it is deemed appropriate and the right way to go, but the department still has a very significant workforce that does the vast majority of the winter maintenance work. That is what the member is talking about at this time. But clearly last year there was a saving in winter maintenance. It is simply because of the nature of the winter.

Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister can give me a better understanding then. How is it on average? We are going to talk in long‑term averages here because I have been told in past Estimates that the department does planning on average winter or average summer requirements. There are going to be peaks and valleys to that process, of course. What kind of money are we looking at saving here, and how is it better for the employees that were doing these jobs normally as part of the departmental staff to now move to a seasonal basis for the staff and, as the minister has just said a minute ago, to go to private contractor replacement for the staff that had been previously doing those jobs? How many staff were involved in that process, numbers specific, and what type of contractual arrangements do we have with private contractors to undertake to fill in place of the departmental staff that had normally done that work?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, there were a little over a hundred people involved in the temporary layoff over the course of the winter. This did not result in any less department equipment being out there doing the job. These were staff that the department deemed were not necessary to do the average winter maintenance that would be required across the highways of Manitoba. It has been an ongoing situation with municipalities and with private contractors that at certain times and places where it is deemed appropriate they will be called in and paid on an hourly basis for particular jobs. The department did do a trial last year where they tendered for the plowing of certain highways, tendered out to private contractors to do it as an experiment.

Mr. Reid: What were the names of the contractor firms and how much money have we expended for those firms, and which highways were they supposed to clear?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we do not have that information at this time. We will come back to the member with the firms that were successful tenderers, the highways that were done in this way, the dollars involved and also the comparative cost of had it been done by the department.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I had received a letter from someone I take that was affected by the department's actions and indicated that there were going to be several private contractors hired, and that there was going to be a fixed fee for the contractors to be on standby. Is that the case?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, staff will bring the terms of the contract along with that information I said previously we would bring.

* (1500)

Mr. Reid: I appreciate that. I look forward to receiving that information from the minister because I think if we have long‑term employees in the department, it would seem somewhat unreasonable from this point, without having that information in front of me, that we would be laying off these employees just for pure convenience for the department. I know the minister already knows that we have a philosophical difference about privatization of certain aspects of either the department or transportation in general, so that is why I am interested in what is taking place here, because to me it appears to be a move towards privatization of the services that had normally been provided within the department. That is why I am interested in seeing this.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I guess we can call it a philosophical difference, but it is a rather significant philosophical difference. Our job is to get the highways maintained at the least possible cost to the taxpayer. That is the mission we are on, and the member says we should hire employees just because we should hire employees.

We will come back with the information he has talked about, and as I say, the pilot was done. Our mission is to find the lowest cost way to effectively use Manitobans to get our highways cleaned off in the wintertime. That is our mission. It is not to hire people just for the sake of hiring them. It is hiring them to do the job in the most cost‑efficient way, whether it is employees or whether it is contracted out or whether it is a combination of the two. I think what you see is the department is using a combination of the two. What is right will be what is the least cost to the taxpayer, because in either instance we are using Manitobans to do that job.

Mr. Reid: Well, if this was such a great and wonderful thing, then I am sure it must have been a consideration by the department in past years, and I would not think for a moment that this would have been a new consideration by the department. There must have been some comparisons year over year, private versus departmental staff doing the work, and I would not think that this is something new. For us to move at this time seems to me a little bit unusual, knowing the minister's interests in moving towards certain types of activity from the private sector versus the public sector doing that type of work.

I am not talking here about increasing the staff. We had staff in place to do that type of work, and now for us to be moving away from that staff, laying them off on a seasonal basis and then calling them back and hoping that they will be there as trained people, what you are effectively hoping to undertake is to have a captive workforce that goes on unemployment insurance during the winter months‑‑if that is the case‑‑and then have the taxpayers of the country pick up the costs. So where are we further ahead?

This is a program that even the Liberal Party is undertaking to review in Ottawa right now, some of the industries here in our city that are doing that type of activity, laying people off in their low‑production months and then bringing them back and hopefully they will be there, available for them to come back in their high‑peak demand periods. That seems to be where the department is going. I am wondering how it is more efficient for us as a province to undertake that type of activity. That is why I am asking for the information.

I also want to ask the minister, because we had some discussions last year about the RTAC routes and they have changed now to the TAC council I believe that looks at routes, do we have any kind of a TAC routing map for the province?

Mr. Findlay: Yes, we do. We have a TAC routing map.

Mr. Reid: Would it be possible to get a copy of that at some point so I would have a better understanding of where these routes are?

Are there any changes that are anticipated to those routes to allow for greater weights and dimensions of vehicles travelling? Are we looking at an expansion of the routes?

Mr. Findlay: Yes, as I indicated earlier, Madam Chairperson, we will supply the route map to the member. Certainly, that map gets added to whenever a road, a PR or a PTH, is upgraded or a bridge on that particular route is upgraded that was below standard for RTAC routes. Also routes are added in the wintertime during the frozen state. RTAC designation can be in place for a number of weeks or a few months in the wintertime. The routes in the province continue to get added to, and they are added if they are upgraded, the bridge or the road is upgraded and there is a commercial need to rate it up to an RTAC rating.

Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I look forward to receiving it because I did not have a full understanding of the routes that we have in the province. There are some cases where I have truckers call me on certain issues relating to routes, so I like to be able to tell them what routes they would be interested in, whether they are part of that system or not.

Also last year when we cut back on the dust abatement program and we moved towards a fee for service for those who were interested in receiving the spray on the gravel roads to keep the level of dust down, there was obviously a fair number of people who were affected by that. There were concerns that were brought to our attention on health and safety issues, too, relating to that spray, whether it be people who have asthma or other ailments for which dust had affected them. What kind of enquiries has the department received? What number of people have contacted the department and contracted for that spraying throughout the province?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we do not have an accurate number as to how many paid the $150 to the department for the job. We feel it is probably about 10 percent of the locations that had previously been done.

Mr. Reid: If the minister could, if the department has the information somewhere back in records, I would appreciate receiving that. Also I would like to know what type of revenue was generated by the interest of the public to have their property sprayed, and were there any cases that came forward to the minister asking for compassionate consideration based on the needs of the family? Also, did we realize the $500,000 savings out of the elimination of this program as part of the maintenance budget? It was my understanding there was going to be a $200 cost for this program; why is the minister now talking about $150? Did we reduce the cost of that?

Mr. Findlay: The $200 per site figure that the member had last year was an estimated cost. When the department figured out the exact cost of doing it, they ended up with $150, which is the figure that I mentioned earlier. So somebody contracted the department to do it; the cost was $150. In regard to the saving that was budgeted last year, yes, the saving was achieved, if not more than that, because the department did not get involved in the cost of doing it, so the saving was fairly automatic.

With regard on compassionate grounds, I guess there were some requests in that regard, and the department did not do any on that basis.

Mr. Reid: Does the minister have information pertaining to the revenue that was generated by the fee for service, since this dust maintenance program went to that basis? What type of revenue was generated? If he does not have the information available here today, because he indicated earlier that he does not know the exact number of people that applied for it, but if he has the information on revenue generated, he can bring that back at the same time.

Mr. Findlay: I do not have that figure here now, but I think the member must realize that revenue received by government goes directly to Finance. It does not pass go; we do not collect our $200. [interjection]

Mr. Findlay: We bill. They collect.

Mr. Reid: So the minister is telling me then he has no idea how much revenue is being generated. He must know the number of applications that come forward to the department for that type of work. I would think that he would have the information available.

Mr. Findlay: Yes, we have the information. I am just saying that we do not have it now, but I do not want the member to think that the Department of Highways has that revenue.

Mr. Reid: I would not suggest that his department collects it. I know there has been some debate on whether or not the revenue should come back to the departments that generate the revenue, and I am sure that debate will continue long into the future for whichever government is there.

Can the minister indicate to me, because there have been changes in this portion of the program with dust abatement, have there been any changes anticipated for other programs, whether it be sanding or salting or any other anticipated program changes for the maintenance portion of the department?

Mr. Findlay: I guess, fundamentally, the answer to the member's question is no; there is no major reduction in activities. I also want to remind the member that in the process of operating a department we are always looking for ways to be more efficient, more cost effective at getting a job done. One example might be, which does draw a little attention once in a while, is that when they are cleaning the main street in a town, it is the PR or the PTH through the town. We used to clear the snow off the street and immediately remove it from the curb, and one has to realize that is a costly process. With not very much snow in the wintertime, that snow can be allowed to accumulate for one, two, three, maybe four storms depending on how much there is.

So you save some cost by not removing it every storm. You do it when there is an appropriate amount of snow to warrant not only grading it away to the curb but removing it from the curb. So those kinds of cost savings will continue. The amount of sand and salt you use, how often you use it will be determined by the cost efficiency and, naturally, to achieve safety particularly at our intersections.

* (1510)

Mr. Reid: I was aware of that part. The previous minister indicated in the Estimates last year that was going to be the case. I do not think, from my understanding, that the municipalities, the R.M.s or the LGDs would be particularly happy with that, but I suppose that was a decision that the department made.

There were some changes in past years, too, with dealing with the roadside maintenance in the summer months where the department cut back on the amount of grass mowing and cutting. In fact, it is my understanding now they have even gone away from cutting the ditches, and they are just doing some roads at road edge. Is that still the case? Is that still the policy for this year? If not, maybe the minister can indicate what changes are going on there.

Mr. Findlay: With regard to the mowing, there is no change from last year. They will be mowing just the shoulder of the road, and how much of the shoulder depends on how major a highway it is, and mowing where there are problems with brush or with weeds.

Mr. Reid: I am just wondering how that fits in under the annual report's comments then. You look under the Maintenance Program, and it says with respect to the Maintenance Program: "investment in highway facilities" and to "accommodate highway users with a safe and uniform level of service, and conserve esthetic values." How does that type of a program jibe with the words of your own annual report?

Mr. Findlay: "Esthetic value," I guess‑‑I mean, this is the Highways department. We are associated with the highway surface for safety, and "esthetic," to me, means a nice safe highway as opposed to ditches that look pretty, which does not protect anybody from anything.

Mr. Reid: I am glad the minister raised that point, because this will take me to a more parochial question dealing with a roadway that runs between our two constituencies, Provincial Trunk Highway 15. The department undertook to do some maintenance work on that last summer, I believe. At least I believe that was part of his department's repair program, between Plessis Road and what is supposed to be the new right‑of‑way for the Perimeter Highway. Maybe the minister can answer that, if that is part of his department's responsibility, first.

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, that is City of Winnipeg property. Our boundary is the south boundary of that road. The city has the road, and then we have the land south of there. But the south boundary of the road back to Murdock‑‑I think, Murdock‑‑that is Springfield south of the road. That is the Department of Highways. But the road itself that you are talking about is city property.

Mr. Reid: Okay, I may be confused on that, then, because it was my understanding when it was designated as a provincial road or a PTH that it was under the responsibility of the department. There was, I know, some extensive work that was done there, but the problem is that the roadway is starting to slide now as a result of some of the rains and the water flow down in the ditch. So, if it was the department's responsibility, I would have thought we would have wasted our money without taking some further appropriate actions to prevent the erosion of their base.

So I will take the minister's word that that is not part of his department, then, unless he knows if there is some cost‑sharing arrangement between the department and the city on that road.

Mr. Findlay: Just to reconfirm what I said, that is city property all the way. Although it is called Highway 15, it is also called 115. I guess there is not a clear demarcation where 115 stops‑‑that is the city‑‑and where 15, which is the province, starts, but it is just past the Transcona Cemetery right at the Perimeter. That is where we start on Highway 15.

Mr. Reid: All right, I will bring that to my councillor's attention, make sure he is aware of it then.

I have some questions relating to the changes that were undertaken by the department just recently with respect to the Dauphin Sign Shop. The department has taken and has moved away from meeting their own departmental needs for any signage required within the province and either at that or under a contract basis to LGDs and municipalities too, has the department operations been now wound down completely, or are there still staff or functions taking place?

Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the Dauphin Sign Shop was sold to Signal Industries as of April 1. It was sold on a tender basis. Proposal calls were called for. Three different firms came forward and Signal Industries was the best offer. The staff who were in the Sign Shop are now staff of Signal Industries.

Mr. Reid: Does the minister know if all the staff were retained for that department? Was that one of the conditions of the contractual arrangements that were made, and is it possible to see any of those contractual arrangements between the department and Signal Industries?

Mr. Findlay: All four employees at April 1st started to work with Signal Industries. To our knowledge, they are all still there. We do not know of any change in that regard.

With regard to the actual contract that was signed, it is over 300 pages. The lawyers on both sides add to the paperwork.

Mr. Reid: Did you read all of it?

* (1520)

Mr. Findlay: I will not answer, but I can tell the member if he wants a copy of it, remember you have 312 pages, or we can give you a synopsis of it, whatever you would like. We do not have any problem with it, but it is just‑‑to ask for a copy of the entire thing unless you are really going to use it, it is fairly expensive to do. So if you would like a synopsis or something, we can give you that.

Mr. Reid: I would appreciate to see a synopsis at this point. Although we will hold in reserve the option, if possible, to see the full contract depending upon what information is contained within the synopsis or the summary itself.

Maybe the minister can just answer some general