LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY OF
Monday,
July 12, 1993
The House met at 8 p.m.
ORDERS OF
THE DAY (continued)
COMMITTEE
OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent
Sections)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Order, please.
When this section of the committee last sat, we had been considering the
Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
As agreed to by unanimous consent in the House earlier this afternoon,
Rule 65(6.3) has altered the sequence of departmental Estimates in this section
of the Committee of Supply.
For
the committee's information, I will read the changes made in the House: Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Rural
Development, Decentralization, Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, and then
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Also I would like to point out that Rule
65(9)(c) has been relaxed and leave was given in the House to introduce new
departments after 10 p.m.
CONSUMER
AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): We will now deal with Consumer and Corporate
Affairs on page 24 of the Estimates book.
We are dealing with line 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries $263,200‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $49,700‑‑pass.
(a)
Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 5.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,029,500 for Consumer and Corporate Affairs,
Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1994.
This completes the Department of Consumer and
Corporate Affairs. Thank you.
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): We will now carry on with the Department of
Rural Development on page 130. Under
normal
1.(b)(1) Salaries $361,200.
Does the minister have an opening statement?
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister of Rural Development): Yes, I
do. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would
first of all like to welcome my critics to the Estimates debate for the
Department of Rural Development.
This evening, I am pleased to introduce my department's
Estimates for review, and I look forward to discussing the details of the
services and commitments we are making for the 1993‑94 fiscal year.
I
guess, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is one word that actually describes by
department's agenda, and that is "action." This department is taking
action to stimulate economic growth and diversification. We are actively promoting rural communities
as key players in the new and expanding global marketplace. We are actively pursuing new measures to update
procedures, services and legislation related to local government.
* (2005)
As
many of you will recall, there were a number of long‑standing issues
within the department when I came forward for Estimates last year. Since then the Department of Rural Development
has taken definitive action to resolving outstanding issues, to examine and to
discuss emerging issues and to introduce new programs and legislation to adapt
to the changing demands of our society.
We not only start new initiatives, we complete them. The credit for our success and the high rate
of activity goes to the department staff and to the many rural Manitobans who
have been working with us to address concerns by developing innovative
solutions.
I
would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge and commend the efforts put
forth by municipal officials and administrators, the Union of Manitoba
Municipalities, the Manitoba Association of Urban Municipalities, the Rural
Development Institute at Brandon University, the Economic Innovation and
Technology Council and the many other rural organizations and individuals who
have been working with the department staff over the past year.
I
would also like to extend these commendations to the regional development
agencies, whose work fosters economic development at local levels, and
conservation and planning districts, whose work to promote sustainable
development will benefit us today and in the future.
Over the past year we have completed the
restructuring process, and we are very pleased to welcome a new deputy
minister, Mr. Winston Hodgins and two new assistant deputy ministers, Ms. Marie
Elliott and Mr. Larry Martin, to our Rural Development team.
As
part of the restructuring we have created two separate divisions: the Rural Economic Development division and
the Local Government Services division.
These divisions will enable us to focus on new emerging issues and to
make our staff more responsive to the needs and concerns of rural Manitobans.
We
have also created a new Corporate Planning and Business Development Branch to
improve communication and co‑ordination within the department. This, in turn, will facilitate program
delivery and enable us to eliminate situations where there are overlapping
responsibilities.
At
the same time, we continue to look for program gaps and opportunities to
strengthen the rural economy. In
conjunction with developing a framework for service, the department is
examining its role in several areas including entrepreneurial development,
tourism, telecommunications, value‑added processing, agriculture, supply
enhancement and procurement.
We
will also be commissioning a major review of the local economic delivery system
in the near future. The study will focus
on the local, provincial and federal economic organizations with a view to
streamlining and joint funding.
With the completion of the department
restructuring, we are in an optimum position to set out on a new year that
promises to be as action packed as the last.
We have an exciting agenda for the upcoming year, and we are right now
working to develop a strategic plan to guide us through each new
endeavour. This strategic plan goes
beyond the boundaries of the fiscal year and beyond the limits of the department
itself. It encompasses all of rural
We
are calling on rural Manitobans and staff in the department to work together,
share ideas and generate new initiatives.
This province‑wide consultation process to develop this plan was
set in motion in
The
forum was organized by the department with the assistance and guidance of an
advisory group made up of rural business leaders from across
The
primary aim of the forum was to develop a united vision for rural
We
made it very clear to the rural
With this positive reinforcement, we are
confident that we are steering rural
In
the upcoming months, we will collate all the information from the form and
follow up discussions and return a summary report to rural communities. This community‑based partnership
approach will remain a fundamental component to our strategy. Grassroots input
has been our most valuable asset when examining current practices and seeking
out innovative solutions.
Thanks to the co‑operation and the
active participation of groups like UMM and MAUM and municipal administrators
and officials, we have successfully resolved a number of outstanding
issues. In particular, we have raised
the limits for licence fees associated with Transient Trader. The change calls for maximum manual fees of
$200 for rural municipalities and urban municipalities with populations to
5,000 and $500 for urban centres with populations over 5,000.
We
have reached third reading for a new regional waste management legislation that
will enable rural municipalities to combine their resources to establish
regional waste disposal sites. This
legislation sets new standards for the development, operation and maintenance
of waste disposal grounds. We are
currently working with some of our northern communities, including
* (2010)
Another very important landmark achievement was
the resolution of the policing issue.
Through extensive consultation and co‑operation, we have made
changes to the Provincial and Municipal Tax‑Sharing Program to narrow the
gap between the cost paid by municipalities for providing police protection at
their own expense and those policed under the provincial RCMP contract. Under the new plan, municipal‑cost
communities will receive a larger portion of the PMTS funding payments for
police services than the provincial‑cost communities. The funding shift will be phased in over two
years, and an additional payment of $200,000 will be provided to provincial‑cost
communities in 1993 to ease the transition to a new cost‑sharing
arrangement. I am very pleased with the
cost‑effective and practical solution that was reached through the co‑operative
effort. The new tax‑sharing
arrangement will be easy to administer, easy to understand and a more equitable
approach to policing costs for
We
are also right on schedule in implementing our strategy of ongoing and
continuing improvement to the assessment system. Even property classification
portioning, while they have been somewhat controversial, have served a very
necessary function. They have allowed us to phase in market‑value
assessment without the sweeping tax shifts and upheaval that would normally
occur with a change of this magnitude.
The adjustments that continue to occur throughout a ten‑year
strategy allow for a natural progression to market‑value assessment. With these changes in place, we have already
made significant strides in improving the level of fairness and equity in the
taxes paid by the various classes of property.
In fact, the major thrust of the changes deal directly with the concerns
raised by municipalities throughout the province.
We
are now gearing up to begin the next province‑wide reassessment for
1994. This reassessment will set us on a
course for a regular reassessment cycle that will ensure the tax base reflects
a current and accurate property assessment.
At the same time, the new market‑value approach clarifies the
assessment process and enables ratepayers to understand how their property has
been assessed. Also, in response to
concerns raised by municipalities, we are working to redesign the tax statements
from property tax notices. Based on the
feedback from municipalities, we have developed a new design that clearly
distinguishes between the municipal and school board portions of the tax
notices. We have also worked with
municipal administrators to create new and improved designs for the reports and
forms that support budgeting and taxation.
As
I mentioned earlier, taking action means resolving issues, which we have done,
and taking on new challenges to address outstanding and emerging issues. One of the biggest undertakings for the next
three years is a comprehensive review and revision of The Municipal Act and
related municipal statute. Our
government made a commitment to revise this outdated act, and we have now set
the wheels in motion. The last substantial
amendment to the act took place in the 1970s and only scratched the surface in
terms of significantly updating the legislation. Our goal today is to examine
the act and develop new, innovative ways for municipalities and other local
service providers to meet challenges today and in the future.
* (2015)
The
Municipal Act and related statutes review will determine public opinion on
related issues and concerns about
While we are working to revise the acts, staff
in our department and regional offices will continue to provide services and
assistance to local governments throughout the province.
I
am pleased to note that we are increasing the number of economic development
officers across
All
of our economic development initiatives are geared toward building on the
natural strengths and the resources that abound in
I
point to the overwhelming success of the Community Choices program. When we first introduced this program, we
believed it would run its course and finish by the 1992‑93 fiscal
year. What we did not count on was the
immense support and enthusiasm from rural communities. Because we are still receiving requests from
communities who want to establish a round table for their area and because we
have witnessed the many positive benefits of Community Choices, we have
allocated funding to extend this program to the new fiscal year. There are currently 41 round tables in
The
Grow Bonds program continues to offer Manitobans one of the most viable and
exciting options to invest in themselves and give a boost to the local
economy. Approved projects are well on
their way to developing new jobs and an expanded industrial base in the local
area. The Altona Grow Bond office
continues to receive and evaluate new proposals, and I anticipate we will hear
several more good‑news stories in the upcoming year.
The
Rural Economic Development Initiative or, as it is better known, REDI is also
showing great promise. To date,
approximately $11 million of rural VLT revenues have been committed,
recommended for approval or expended on economic development programs for
projects in rural
In
the budget announcement, our government dedicated $12.3 million of VLT revenue
to support economic growth and development in rural regions. This is more that three times the amount of
last year's commitment. Of that total
and in response to requests at the local level, $3.5 million has been allocated
unconditionally to local governments at their discretion because they know best
what to do in their communities.
By
tapping into our Feasibility Studies program, our Infrastructure Development
program, or the MBA Student Consulting and Development Support projects, a
community can access both funding and expertise to enhance its local
infrastructure and to help its economy.
These programs are getting a positive review
from rural Manitobans and from their communities and we are hearing equally
enthusiastic responses to the newest REDI program, the Rural Entrepreneur
Assistance program. The REA program, as
it is known, provides guarantee loan assistance and business support services
to eligible new and existing businesses in communities outside of
Like last year, the REDI program is going
beyond its mandate to assist communities with rural economic development by
incorporating a special component to assist young people. We recognize the importance of keeping our
young people working and learning new skills in their own home
communities. An essential part of this
learning process must start with their education. We must teach our children
entrepreneurial skills and encourage them to set aside the old philosophy about
educating ourselves for a specific job.
We
all recognize the successful Manitobans in the future will use their education
to create their own jobs and opportunity. Through the Green Team Youth
Employment and Parks Enhancement Program and the Partners with Youth program,
young Manitobans will have more opportunities to find jobs throughout the
summer months.
Last year the Green Team alone employed 204
youths and worked on 34 project locations for July and August. This year, we are building upon last year's
success and expanding the program to provide skills training and employment to about
340 youths over a longer period. That is
going to run from May until the end of September.
The
Partners with Youth program will also continue this year. Through this initiative, young Manitobans are
hired by local communities, agencies and businesses who receive matching
provincial grants of up to $2,000 to cover costs. This year, Partners with Youth is introducing
a new component designed to encourage young people to start their own full‑time
businesses. The key elements of this program are that young people have jobs,
receive excellent hands‑on experiences and stay in their rural
communities while local businesses have the extra help they need to complete
local projects.
The
REDI program is also providing funding to support studies examining the
feasibility of a new initiative that would expand natural gas service in rural
As
part of our department's mandate to promote economic development, we are
focusing on a number of other initiatives to improve infrastructure and enhance
the foundation of our rural communities.
Downtown Revitalization: The communities involved in this initiative
are well underway to giving a facelift to their downtown areas. Because of the success of this initiative, we
are currently exploring the possibility of expanding the program to include
other interested communities.
PAMWI:
Through careful allocation of resources and cost efficiency, we are also
looking to expand the Federal/Provincial Partnership Agreement on Municipal
Wastewater Infrastructure to include more communities. The $90 million PAMWI agreement was signed to
provide cost‑shared assistance to upgrade municipal water infrastructure
in rural communities.
While we are on the topic of conservation and
responsive plans for the sustainable development of our province, I believe it
is important to touch on the valuable input of Conservation and Planning
Districts.
* (2020)
These districts are an example of sustainable
development initiatives in action. By
organizing and co‑ordinating different regions of the province, they make
efficient use of joint resources and contribute to the quality of life in rural
The
Department of Rural Development certainly recognizes the valuable contributions
of conservation and planning districts, and we are committed to exploring ways
of making them more cost‑effective, while providing the same basic
services. We intend to proceed with a
complete review of The Planning Act and The Conservation Districts Act as soon
as we have completed the consultation process for The Municipal Act review.
The
review of the two acts will examine options to ensure both acts respond to the
demands in a cohesive and effective manner.
The main objectives of the review are to streamline, clarify and
modernize the development of land use approval processes and to create better
links between environmental reviews, water and land use planning processes and
conservation programs.
I
want to emphasize that any review process we implement will include the full
participation of the public and the ongoing consultation with
stakeholders. We are also proceeding
with the review of provincial land use policies adopted in 1980. The revised policies were completed this past
year and are now being considered by the Provincial Land Use Committee of
Cabinet. Following their approval, the new policies will be adopted as a regulation
under The Planning Act.
With each of these endeavours, we are striving
to find an appropriate balance between promoting and planning for new
industries while adhering to the sustainable development principles that
protect our environment. We are also
working with Manitobans to address concerns related to the environmental impact
of livestock operations. A multisectoral
committee, which is made up of producer groups, municipal representatives and
consumer organizations has been established in finalizing management guidelines
and an environmental code of practice for hog operations. These guidelines will be available to
producers and municipalities in the very near future.
At
the regional level, interdepartmental technical advice and assistance is being
offered to producers and municipalities to co‑ordinate the review and
approval of large scale proposals. As
with all ventures in our department, we are stressing the need for
communication, co‑operation and mutual understanding as the key to
resolving issues.
We
have all witnessed and participated in enough activity over the past year to
realize that partnerships are making a difference. From my remarks here today, I am sure it is clear
to everyone that we are having a very active and very productive year.
While it may sometimes appear that the various
initiatives going on throughout the department are running independent of each
other, the fact is that they are all geared to one very important goal‑‑creating
a climate for growth in rural Manitoba to ensure that rural Manitoba remains a
vital growing centre of our province where people enjoy a high quality of life.
My
department will continue to do its part to provide assistance and tools to
rural communities. I have seen from
experience that rural Manitobans have the enthusiasm, the skill and the
persistence to take those tools, seek out opportunities that abound right here
in our backyard and to turn those opportunities to their advantage.
Members have received copies of the Estimates
supplement. I am prepared now to proceed
with a detailed examination of the Estimates for the Department of Rural
Development for the 1993‑94 fiscal year.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Chair.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister for those remarks.
Does the critic for the opposition party the
honourable member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) have an opening statement?
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): First of all, I would also like to welcome the
new staff that the minister has put in place, starting with his new deputy
minister who took over, I guess, a year ago and the two new staff members, Ms.
Elliott and Mr. Martin. I have had the
opportunity to meet both of them. I am
sure that their support in your department will be beneficial and hopefully we
can get rural
* (2025)
I
think, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that the minister has made quite a few
statements here this evening, and I would think the minister, using a term, the
ball is in his court and has been for the last year since he has obtained the
ministry of the Department of Rural Development. I think that we would like to see
action. As he had mentioned in his
opening statement, they are supposed to be dedicated to action within Rural
Development.
I
would think that this minister and this government and staff and with the
realignment of the budget in Rural Development must deal with the issues in
rural
I
think right now, I have not had the opportunity to be a rural Manitoban as long
as the minister has, but I know that some of his statements I find true, that
the people in rural
He
is talking about all this money that is being committed through the REDI
program and from Lotteries Commission and what‑not, but I think that my
message to him, and the message from rural Manitobans, is that instead of just
talking about feasibility studies, instead of just talking about what is needed
within the communities, they, the people in rural Manitoba, UMM and MAUM, are
looking for better direction from the government and assistance.
The
minister has indicated that he is going to bring economic officers throughout
Manitoba, and I would like to be able to give the minister as much support as
possible, not politically, but just for the fact of being a rural Manitoban
myself, one who is awfully proud of the fact that I moved to rural Manitoba
some nine, 10 years ago, and perhaps not consider myself a full rural
Manitoban, but one that enjoys rural Manitoba, enjoys living there, and I want
to see some future, not only for my family, but for others, not only in my
community, but throughout communities in Manitoba.
So
he talks new programs and initiatives, he talks about foundation for future, he
talks about downtown revitalization. It is fine to talk, and I think that being
also the new critic for this area, I am sort of a little bit inexperienced as
far as everything that is going on within the budget. I was sort of hoping that we would have the
opportunity to be able to go through this in much more detail, so that I could
possibly have a better understanding of how the department reacts. However, due to time restraints that we have,
I will just close my comments and would like to request that we do have some
time for some specific questions. I will
allow the member for St. Boniface (Mr. Gaudry) to make a few remarks and leave
us some time to deal on specific issues.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the honourable member for those
remarks. Does the critic for the second
opposition party, the honourable member for St. Boniface, have a statement?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Oui, Monsieur le President.
It
gives me great pleasure again to be the critic for Rural Development, and I
want to express my thanks to the staff of the minister. The minister himself has offered many times
to go to the rural areas with him when he has gone. But I have never heard such a long‑winded
opening statement. I would not have used
that comment, but one of his colleagues‑‑
An Honourable Member: Those were just point form . . . .
* (2030)
Mr. Gaudry: No, I appreciate‑‑I know there
are time constraints on this, but like I say, no, we could go till midnight,
but then we have to stop, and that will be the end of our Estimates. There are
other departments also.
Like I say, I would like to thank his staff
for the co‑operation, and I hope that we are co‑operating the same
way. We will continue to do so. I would
like to go into the Estimates and ask questions, and I would like to thank the
minister for his opening remarks.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: At this time, we would ask the minister to
invite his staff and introduce the staff present.
Then we will move on to line 1. Administration
and Finance (b) Executive Support (1) Salaries.
Is
it the will of the committee then that we pass all the lines other than the
Minister's Salary and (b) Executive Support, that we come back and deal with those
two at the end? Okay, then we are going
to move on; we are going to pass some lines.
Mr. Gaudry: What about the decentralization? How is it going to be dealt with? It is following Rural Development.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: It comes after Rural Development. There is a separate‑‑okay. We will carry on then.
1.(c)
(d)
Human Resource Management (1) Salaries $151,900‑‑pass.
Mr. Derkach: I believe you had asked that I introduce the
staff to the members opposite here. I
would like to introduce, first of all, the deputy minister for the department,
Winston Hodgins. I would also like to introduce Roger Dennis, who is the
executive director for the Local Government Services branch; also Ron Riopka,
who is the director of Corporate Planning and Business Development branch; and
Brian Johnston, who is the manager of Financial and Administrative
Services. Brian is here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: (2) Other Expenditures $17,300‑‑pass.
(e)
Financial and Administrative Services (1) Salaries $212,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $249,100‑‑pass.
2.
Boards (a) Municipal Board (1) Salaries $297,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $126,100‑‑pass.
(b)
Surface Rights Board (1) Salaries $23,400‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $17,800‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $465,200 for Rural Development, Boards, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day March, 1994.
3.
Corporate Planning and Business Development (a) Salaries $542,700‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $59,100‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $601,800 for Rural Development, Corporate Planning and
Business Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
4.
Local Government Services (a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries $73,700‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $22,800‑‑pass.
(b)
Assessment (1) Salaries $5,092,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$1,073,900‑‑pass.
(c)
Local Government Support Services (1) Salaries $684,500‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $349,300‑‑pass; (3) Transit Grants $1,280,000‑‑pass;
(4) Centennial Grants $14,800; (5) Police Services Grants $200,000‑‑pass;
(6) Municipal Support Grants $1,045,800‑‑pass.
(d)
Grants to Municipalities in Lieu of Taxes (1) Grants $34,480,200‑‑pass;
(2) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($32,540,300)‑‑(pass).
(e)
Information Systems (1) Salaries $595,200‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $1,946,100‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $14,318,400 for Rural Development, Local Government
Services, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
5.
Rural Economic Development: Provides
resources to create new employment opportunities in rural
Item 5.(a) Executive Administration (1)
$102,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $18,500‑‑pass.
5.(b) Infrastructure Services (1) Salaries
$1,186,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $387,800‑‑pass.
5.(c) Community Economic Development Services
(1) Salaries $2,398,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $769,300‑‑pass;
(3) Grants $536,600‑‑pass.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just before we pass
this resolution, I thought it might be appropriate to introduce to my
opposition critics the Assistant Deputy Minister for the Economic Development
Division, who has just joined us at the table, Mr. Larry Martin.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Resolution 13.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $5,400,200 for Rural Development, Rural Economic
Development, for the fiscal year ending on the 31st day of March, 1994.
6.
Expenditures Related to Capital (a) Transit Bus Purchases $30,000‑‑pass.
(b)
Water Development $400,000‑‑pass.
(c)
Sewer and Water $2,000,000‑‑pass.
(d)
Canada‑Manitoba Partnership Agreement on Municipal Water Infrastructure
$3,520,000‑‑pass.
(e)
Drought Proofing $435,300‑‑pass.
(f)
Conservation Districts $1,757,800‑‑pass.
(g)
Downtown Revitalization $583,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $8,726,100 for Rural Development, Expenditures Related to
Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Lotteries Funded Appropriations:
7.
Rural Economic Programs (a) Grow Bonds Program (1) Salaries $319,200‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $519,900‑‑pass.
(b)
Rural Economic Development Initiatives (1) Salaries $140,300‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $52,300‑‑pass; (3) Programs $5,718,300‑‑pass.
(c)
Special Projects $2,000,000‑‑pass.
(d)
Rural Community Development Projects $3,500,000‑‑pass.
Resolution
13.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $12,250,000 for Rural Development, Rural
Economic Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
* (2040)
Now
we will revert back to 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries $361,200.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister in his
opening remarks made comment with regard to natural gas and that there is a
study going on, that a certain amount of money has been allocated for this. But there is concern out there, and I would
like the minister to clarify further and give us more detail as to the study,
what is going on with it, why has it been four years since we came to this
government, in 1989, the IDC did, which I was a part of. Since then the IDC has diligently done an
enormous amount of work. Just within the
last year, year and a half, the Interlake Dehyd Products has been struck. They have spent a countless amount of dollars
on studies, have travelled to
As
we talked about in private members' resolutions, my comments to the government
were, let us get some of that gas, some of that natural gas underneath the
seats of the ministers responsible, light them up and let us get moving on this
and just find out where we are going. It
has been a long time and that is on record.
What direction can you give us today, what is going to happen with the
natural gas? It is a big issue out
there. It is a very important issue to a
lot of people. I would really appreciate
some answers on that. Where are we going? I do not want to wait, and neither does
everybody else. There are a lot of
people out there that are depending on some positive answers from this
government to move ahead with projects.
We
talked about infrastructure, we talked about economic rural development, we
talked about maintaining economic development in rural
Mr. Derkach: I would like to start out by telling the
member from the Interlake that over the course of the last year and a half,
since I have been minister of this department, we have acted on several fronts. With regard to natural gas, it is no less important
than many of the other initiatives that we have embarked on.
But
let me say that natural gas is not simply an energy source that we as a
government can provide to rural communities at no cost to those
communities. He has to understand that,
first of all, there has to be some major commitment from a community to be able
to pay for and to be able to hook up to that source of energy. It is not a matter of laying a pipeline to a
community and saying, now there you go, community, link up if you like. Do not worry about the infrastructure that we
have had to plow into the ground.
Before you can plow any line into the ground,
there has to be some work done with regard to whether or not this is an
economical way of providing an energy source to a community. The member represents an area where there has
been some activity, and I might say, over the last year and a half or so, some
serious activity with regard to promoting a community and with regard to
finding industry to locate in that community.
I can
tell you that is a result of the action that has been taken by this department
through the Community Choices program. Up until that time, many of our
communities were very stagnant, and I do not say that of any particular
community in our province. I say that of
many of our communities in our province where they were sitting back and,
perhaps because of the economic times or for whatever reason, were waiting for
someone else to do their work for them.
Over the last year and a half, we have tried
to encourage communities to use their own resources and to look for answers
from within. Many have done that. I would have to say that the community of
Arborg is one of those communities that has really taken the initiative, the
Community Choices program, and has really gone to work in terms of actively
pursuing a viable industry for their community.
It
is that kind of interest and that kind of activity that has motivated us to
respond to them as one community among many to look at the feasibility of
providing natural gas service to that community. I have to tell the member also that this is
not a small initiative. You cannot
simply go out and extend natural gas service to a community and hope that it
will somehow pay for itself. There has
to be a great deal of work taken into account when you are dealing with the
kinds of dollars that we are looking at.
Inter‑City Gas, as the member knows, has for a long time had a
policy where they will not extend natural gas until it is feasible to do so.
We
have indicated that to assist these communities‑‑we know that in
some communities there is not any hope in them being able to pay back the
infrastructure cost in five years, so we have taken the initiative to do a
study and then perhaps to work in partnership with those communities to extend
the service where it is most feasible.
There are communities around our province which, it seems, are poised
and ready for development, where the community has now reached a point where the
homeowners are ready to sign up to hook on to natural gas, and it is that kind
of activity, that kind of interest that will assist us in extending natural gas
service to some of these communities.
But
I can tell you it is not a small undertaking.
It is a huge undertaking, and right now between the Department of Energy
and Mines and my department we have staff who are working very diligently at
looking at the feasibility of extending natural gas service to the communities
that are most ready for it. We have been
working now for the last year, I would say, very, very diligently. We have assigned at least two staff people
who work on it full time, one from Energy and Mines, one from my department,
who are actively working on it day in and day out with the communities, with
the suppliers, looking at alternative ways, doing the cost structuring. We have also now had Manitoba Hydro come on
board and give us some of their expertise in terms of putting numbers together
and that sort of thing.
So
it is my hope that within the foreseeable future we will be seeing some action
in that regard.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would just want to
put on record that the minister made reference to certain communities
participating more diligently than others when it comes to natural gas. I certainly do hope that he was referring to
the Interlake area and Arborg and that area and the Interlake Development
Corporation, because since 1989 this area has been trying to deal with just the
things that the minister has just finished saying. There has been nothing since 1989. Now, if any one area‑‑and I am
not aware of any other area‑‑but specifically that area and those
communities and those development corporations that have been working to
provide and complete studies, it has been this area.
Basically, the minister says that it is costly
and whatnot, but I certainly know that.
I certainly realize the costs and, I think, so do the communities. But, besides just the community at large of
Arborg and the Interlake Development Corporation, I have not heard of anybody
from the minister's department, from the government's office or from Centra Gas
doing any type of an initiative study within the areas.
I
live in one community and I live in the area, and I have had nobody come to me
and say, would you want natural gas?
Could you participate in restructuring your place of residence or
business or whatever? I really have
not. If I have not, and if there has
been, I would certainly like to see a survey, but nobody has come to me with a
feasibility study. The studies that are
going on right now within the department and that, I can appreciate to a
point. The minister talks action. This is action by dealing with some things
like this natural gas issue on a front‑line basis.
* (2050)
Mr. Derkach: Well, the member may not know, but during the
round of meetings that we had, the regional meetings, the district meetings
that were held, there were several points where we discussed that entire issue.
I
would say that the
Of
course, the community itself has not really surveyed its membership to see
whether or not they can have a 65 percent hookup rate, which is required if
natural gas is going to go into a community.
The
other problem that they have right now is they are not sure whether or not this
industry they are speaking about is one that is going to be a reality. Now it is a chicken‑and‑egg
thing. We have indicated to them that we
are not going to be standing in their way of development. If it means that their community is ready,
then we are certainly prepared to work with them in co‑operation.
The
other community that has been actively looking‑‑and I see the
member for
They have contacted a potential user of
natural gas, who may be prepared to locate in their community. If that becomes a reality, once again we will
not stand in their way of development.
We will be working in co‑operation and in partnership to provide
them with the least expensive source of energy that we can. But what it means is that before that
happens, we have to be prepared to have our homework done so that if in fact
the project goes ahead, we are ready to swing into action and to take the steps
necessary to provide that gas service almost immediately, rather than starting
to do a feasibility study at that point to determine whether or not we can
supply the energy.
We
are working not just with those communities.
I mentioned the communities of Killarney, Melita and Deloraine, in that
area of the province. We are working
with those communities as well. It is a huge province. We are trying to ensure that, if industry
does move in and it looks like one that requires energy, we will be there
working with that community.
I
have to tell the member for the Interlake that we have been in contact with his
area almost on a weekly basis, and we are certainly prepared to work with
them. When they are ready, we will be
there to work with them.
Mr. Clif Evans: Getting off that topic, but mentioning the
Interlake Development Corporation, can the minister tell me the funding for the
RDCs? How much was it cut this
year? What really is the future for the
RDCs? There is concern out there. I
think some of the RDCs are concerned that the minister's department is going to
attempt to phase these development corporations away, primarily due to the cuts
in funding. Some of them cannot take any
more cuts. They have done a tremendous
service to this province since their inception.
A lot of them, since also the inception of the Community Futures, have
worked very hard in their own areas and with their own municipalities and as a
corporation to set their goals aside and deal with the issues in their areas that
are not going to overlap with Community Futures and/or other agencies.
Can
the minister, first of all, tell me how much money has been taken away from the
RDCs this year? What is the future for
the RDCs?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, despite the fact that
we have passed this section, I would like to indicate to the member that we
have reduced the RDCs by 10 percent. The
reason we have reduced them by 10 percent is well known. It is a budgetary decision that was
made. If we look at the kinds of
services that we have had to reduce in other areas as a result of the fiscal
times or financial times that we are experiencing, the member should probably
appreciate the fact that, when we are seeing services in other areas
rationalized to allow for our budget to be as it was in terms of the deficit,
it means that we all have to share in some of that pain, and RDCs were no
different.
In
terms of the future of RDCs, that certainly is something that we are looking at
at the present, not that we want to phase out or eliminate Regional Development
Corporations, but, as the member knows, there are varying degrees of success of
RDCs throughout this province. Some are
working extremely well and have excellent results that they can point to in
terms of their activity. Others are
finding it more difficult and are finding that communities that used to belong
to them are backing away and hiring their own development officers.
So
what it means is that we need to take a look at where we are going with
Regional Development Corporations to ensure that we strengthen them in some
way, or we perhaps have to reorganize them so that they become more effective
tools in the delivery of economic services in the province. It is too early for us to indicate anything
at this time, but there is no design by government to try and eliminate them
completely and not have any kind of a structure out there in rural Manitoba,
because I think, from my comments, the member knows that we place a lot of
importance on rural Manitoba. We have
talked about partnerships. We are trying
to forge those partnerships in a very positive way.
(Mr. Edward Helwer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
As
the member also knows, though, we have looked at other delivery systems. We have our own development offices
throughout rural
I
might say, if you were to take a look at this department's overall budget, you
would see that this department is one of very few that has had an increase in
its overall budget because of the amount of money we have received from the
VLTs.
Mr. Gaudry: The minister, in his opening remarks, spoke
about Grow Bonds.
Can
he tell us what effect and what statistics he has in regard to the success of
Grow Bonds in rural Manitoba as far as employment and what it has done to the
communities that have been involved with the Grow Bonds?
Mr. Derkach: I am very happy to talk about the Grow Bond
program, because I believe it is a very effective tool to assist communities in
utilizing their local capital for long‑term economic benefit. This is not a program whereby we go ahead and
find projects for communities. Rather,
we put this program out, and we promote it as a tool for communities to
use. It is up to the communities, then,
to come forward with viable projects that could be funded through the Grow Bond
program.
It
must be appreciated that this is a long‑term initiative. It is not a
short‑term kind of band‑aid program for economic renewal in rural
communities. Again, it is a program that
works in partnership with the community.
It is expected that over the next year we will be seeing another four or
five projects come forward.
Communities are becoming much more in tune
with what the Grow Bond program is about today and are starting to pursue it in
a much more realistic way than had been the case in the past. To date, we have five projects that have been
approved through the review process. Two
of these projects have been announced and the bonds issued. Both Rimer Alco in Morden and the Care Corporation
in Teulon have certainly shown that the money is there in the rural communities,
that it only takes a very short time to raise that money and to get the
corporation going.
* (2100)
Two
projects we have approved. At the
present time the communities are negotiating with the proponents to get these
projects up and going. So that is a
total of four. The fifth project was
approved by the proponents; they have arranged some private funding and have
decided not to go ahead with the Grow Bond proposal. That will happen from time to time.
We
have also some additional projects that are in their final stages of
approval. Again, the projects vary in
size, and they vary in the complexity, but we try to do a thorough job in the
due diligence that is performed on each of these projects to ensure that we do
not put the money of people and communities at risk. So there is some chance of that project
becoming a reality and becoming viable and one where we will see jobs.
In
terms of the number of jobs that have been brought forward, I think we have
something like 74 jobs that have now been created as a result of the projects
that have been announced. In terms of
dollars, we have a million dollars in Grow Bonds that have been approved. The approvals have resulted in about $2.6
million of investment in communities.
With respect to projects being negotiated at a
community level, it would be a further million dollars in commitment from the
government, and it would involve another $3.6 million in project investment and
something like 67 additional jobs. The
projects that are now going through for final approval involve a $400,000 bond
issue with an additional $700,000 of investment, creating something like 20
jobs.
Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, in summary, I guess I would say that in approved and
recommended‑for‑approval bond projects, we have about $2.4 million
of Grow Bond commitments, about $6.9 million in total project investment and a
total of about 160 jobs in rural
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, in your
expected results here you are seeing more individuals, including young people,
pursuing entrepreneurial opportunities in rural
How
many of these jobs have come out where it is young people that pursued
entrepreneurship?
Mr. Derkach: Are you talking about the Grow Bonds program?
Mr. Gaudry: Yes.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is difficult
to say how many of these people are young and what you define as young, but a
lot of the people who are taking the jobs in these communities are from the
local communities. They vary in age, of
course, but a lot of them are the younger people who are married, raising a
family.
We also
insist that when a Grow Bonds corporation is put together, we have one young
entrepreneur on the board and that means that individual has to be under
30. I can tell you that we have had some
difficulty in some communities finding an entrepreneur under 30, so we have had
to work with that community to try and find somebody. So you can see that our communities are not
made up of a lot of young people.
I
would have to say that where we are hoping that this will take us is to allow
more young families to remain in rural communities and also bring some young
families back to rural communities, and that is sort of the underlying thrust,
if you like, of the Grow Bonds program because with industry will come the
attraction of young people into these rural communities.
Mr. Gaudry: Yes, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think that is
what I was getting at. I know it is
pretty hard. Will it bring younger
people back into the rural communities?
Are we attracting them to stay?
Like you say, it was pretty hard to find young entrepreneurs in the
local communities. I think it is
important that maybe we communicate more to get them interested in coming back
to the rural areas.
Mr. Derkach: Well, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for
St. Boniface is absolutely correct and right on in terms of what the thrust is
of all of our economic development programs.
When you look at the Partners with Youth program and the entrepreneurial
element that is attached to it, what we try to do with that program is
encourage young people not simply to go out and get a job, but more importantly
to get involved in a project which may lead them to an entrepreneurship where
they can remain in that community.
If
you look at our REA program, the Rural Entrepreneur Assistance program, it is
designed for cottage industry; it is designed for business at home or business
on the farm or small business in a community.
Again, our hope is that we can attract that young member of a family who
perhaps does not have the ability to borrow the money from a bank to get a
business going, to be able to come to us, work with us, and then by us
guaranteeing a loan, assist them in starting up a viable business in a small
community.
To
that end, I might say we have had overwhelming interest in the REA program. If the projects that we have seen come forward
become realities, we will utilize our allocation of a million dollars very
quickly and will probably be out of money very soon. We will then have to make a decision of
whether or not we put a pause on the program until our next budget year or
whether in some other way we can pursue other projects that are viable and of
benefit to rural communities.
Mr. Gaudry: Again, in his opening statement, the minister
talked about the Community Round Tables and the Grow Bonds office, and the
Expected Results talks about the grants that will be paid to Community Round
Tables. Are there any grants that have
been paid out already of the Grow Bonds?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in '92‑93
fiscal year, we paid out $53,000 for Community Round Tables, and in this fiscal
year‑‑(interjection) Yes, because that is where we have the
Community Choices program budgeted in.
In
this fiscal year we will be expected to spend something like $50,000 on the
Community Choices program. What is
interesting, and I should point out to the member‑‑and I would
encourage my critics to sometimes sit down with some of the round tables to
talk to them about the kinds of things that are occurring in their communities‑‑that
one of the very interesting things I found was that communities have strengths
in them that they did not realize themselves.
By getting together and looking at where their strengths are and working
on their strengths and developing a vision statement and a strategy, they are
finding that they have opportunities that are right in their own backyards that
have been there for some time, but they have really never sort of gotten them
out of the‑‑or tapped into them, as the member says, which is
correct. That is the exciting part, and
I hope it continues. Of course, our
staff are working very actively with the communities, and I might say that some
very small communities are really taking advantage of the program.
I
can give you an example of a community which went through tremendous turmoil
because they had approached the Manitoba Hazardous Waste Management Corporation
to develop the hazardous waste site in their community, and it was totally
rejected by the surrounding area.
Everyone would have expected the community to die after that, but the
reverse has happened. The community has
bonded together, has formed a round table, and some very interesting and very
positive things have resulted since that time.
We are seeing that community really working towards its sustainability
and also to revitalizing itself.
* (2110)
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just a few other
quick questions, one with regard to the proposal by the community of Riverton
that was made by council, I think, a year ago, maybe a little less, on their downtown
revitalization program. The minister and
his staff met with the mayor and council from Riverton dealing with their
proposal.
Can
the minister indicate just where that is at with this community?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the community of
Riverton, it is true, approached us about a downtown revitalization
program. We indicated to them at that
time that there were only three communities that had been identified for the
downtown revitalization program, two of which had already been announced:
Thompson and Brandon. It was a program
that was designed for those communities that did not have an opportunity to
participate in the
With regard to their project, they certainly
have an aggressive and a very impressive project if it ever comes about. The
Department of Rural Development, the Department of Highways, and, I believe, a
couple of other departments were involved in some follow‑up meetings to
that. I think even the
Although the project has not come forward in
any formal way at this point, I think there is a lot of work going on with
regard to the development of the project.
Then it will be submitted, and we will take another look at it at that
time.
Mr. Clif Evans: For the minister's information, the university
has already brought their different proposals to council. Council is dealing
with that right now and in the future. I
was wondering whether the department itself has taken any initiative itself to
be prepared for a proposal.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the department has
been in contact with the community on a continual basis. Our economic development officer for the
region has been a member who has been working on the initiative. As I indicated, the initiative is not fully
complete yet and is not ready for a formal proposal at this time. When it does come forward, then we can take
steps to work with the community to see that it is a reality.
I
do not know how extensive that project is or what the cost of it is, and
neither did the community at the time when I spoke to them. Whether they have more idea about it now, I
do not know. That is something that my
staff may know, but I do not know what the particulars of that are at this
time.
Mr. Gaudry: My last question in regard to the Estimates
here. It is in regard to a concern that I had raised with the minister
previously in regard to the access of information at the municipal level. It was in regard to subsection 143 of The
Municipal Act permitting anyone to examine (a) to (f). However, it was in regard to certain payments
that were made in details. The minister in his reply mentioned: In the very near future we will be
undertaking a comprehensive review of The Municipal Act and we will be inviting
interested parties to recommend changes.
Has
there been any further study in regard to the access of information for the
municipal people?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the document that was
prepared for The Municipal Act review has now been circulated to all
municipalities. We have indicated to
municipalities that we want them to share this document with their communities
and the members at large in their community.
We
want to see those members who have concerns like the member mentioned come
forward and express those concerns to the panel. It is on that basis that we will formulate
the new Municipal Act. Certainly it is
something that is important as the member brought forward. It does matter, and we are going to ensure
that that in fact is going to be addressed when we move ahead with the new act.
Again, it is not going to be immediate, but we
certainly want to hear from the people who have had difficulty in that regard
and to express themselves before the panel, because that is the way that you
will really get the ball rolling in terms of getting that change implemented
into the new act.
Mr. Gaudry: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, would it be possible
to get that information that has gone out to the municipalities from your
department?
Mr. Derkach: If I have not circulated it to the members, I
apologize for it, but yes, this document was available when we did our district
meetings and I had fully understood that my critics had access to the document,
yes. I will ensure that the member
receives a document, and indeed I would be prepared to sit down and discuss it
with both critics at their convenience.
Mr. Clif Evans: I have a couple of very quick questions to end
the committee, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Derkach: May I just interject for a minute. On the same point, I have a document here for
the member and it also has the French version with it, so I would like to
present it to the member.
Mr. Clif Evans: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just a few questions
on the REDI program to do with the infrastructure part of it.
The
R.M. of Siglunes was very happy to receive a $47,000 grant through the REDI
program for a weigh scale in the community which they have long been trying to
get through the governments. The questions were in reading the contract in
that. It is on a 50‑50 basis and
if I am wrong, correct me. They would
receive a certain amount up front, a certain amount as the job is being done
and worked on, and then a final amount when the job is complete.
Is
there any other structure to that? Does
the department deviate from that specific structure of payment in any which
way? Would there be any projects that‑‑this
is what they were sort of asking me, saying, well, if we need it, would we be
able to get any more money or at a different time.
Mr. Derkach: I am not sure if I follow the member's
questioning, but if in fact he is asking whether or not we deviate from the
progress payment approach on these projects, the answer to that is no.
We
try to ensure that as the project progresses and as phases of it are completed,
we then make payment on the basis that a certain amount of work has been
done. Then a certain portion of the
money is held back to ensure that the project is finished not only to the
satisfaction of the department or government, but more importantly, to the
satisfaction of the community. Then we
allocate the final amount after the project is completed, and we try to be as
consistent as possible in that approach.
To this point I do not believe we have deviated on any projects that I
know of.
Mr. Clif Evans: I would just like to comment on the REDI
program, and hopefully with the monies allocated from VLTs, certainly with the
new monies allocated to the department through the VLT resources, the minister
had indicated that the department received $12.5 million from lotteries and
that the department itself had increased in funding, but I am sure if he looks
at the figures, the department itself, up to the lotteries grant, took a $6
million cut. So I would hope that the
minister with all his statements, opening remarks and that, will in fact be
using that money that has been made available to the benefit of all the rural
communities and the people in rural
I
would also like to just make a comment.
Since I have been critic, I have requested many times different
information in discussions with the staff, and I want to just say that I am
very pleased so far with the response that I have had from staff and from the
minister's office itself. I hope that
continues or we will have to go another route, and I do not necessarily know
whether that route will benefit either one of us.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would have to
indicate that yes, that goes both ways.
Certainly there are times, I guess, when we cannot share all information
that a member may like because of some third‑party confidentiality that
has to be respected, but if it is general information about the department, we
are only too happy to be as co‑operative as possible in sharing with the
member so that they can do their job as well.
* (2120)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1.(b) Executive Support (1) Salaries
$361,200‑‑pass.
1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $77,800.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Minister of Family Services): I missed
part of the earlier discussion on REDI, and I wonder if the minister could give
sort of a general overview of the types of projects that have been approved.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be happy to
talk about REDI in a general sense very briefly, just to give you an idea of
some of the components of REDI which I think are important. We sometimes in haste do not really get a
full understanding of what REDI is all about.
First of all, may I say that REDI is designed
to assist communities in their own economic development initiatives. We have several components of REDI. One of them is the infrastructure program
which municipalities can apply for or individual businesses can apply for. There was a question from the member for
Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) just a minute ago, which I may not have answered
fully, but in his question he asked whether or not there was more than 50‑50
funding.
I
would have to say that if it is a single municipality under the infrastructure
program, they can apply for up to $100,000 for infrastructure. But if more than one municipality goes
together on a project, there, of course, is more money made available to them
up to limit of $500,000.
If
two municipalities, as an example, come together on a project, there is always
an ability to access more money. So
there is that difference which I did not explain to the member, which I think
may be important.
An Honourable Member: The payment structure stays the same.
Mr. Derkach: The payment structure is the same.
There is also the Development Support Program,
and again this program is for unique kinds of projects which will help a
community with its economic base and provide it with an opportunity to develop
a project that might be of lasting benefit to that community. Again, there is not a finite amount that is
specified for that area because it will depend on the project and on the size
of the project.
Again, under this program, the Ayerst example
is one that I can use in terms of the amount of money that was allocated, which
was $1 million for its support in the development of the Ayerst plant in
The
M.B.A. Consulting Program is a very important one which communities are just
starting to get on with, because we have just recently formalized the agreement
with the
It
still continues under I, T, and T, but we have tapped into it. Instead of duplicating administration and all
of that kind of expense, we have piggybacked on that program and allowed that
program to run not just for the summer months but indeed all year round. It enables the students in the M.B.A. program
to go out and assist communities with financial studies, with bookkeeping, with
getting their house in order, if you like, in small businesses,
especially. It is a program that is
very, very important.
The
Feasibility Studies program is the one that we started with first. It is the smallest component of the program,
and it allows for projects in communities to have feasibility work done to see
whether or not an economic project is viable or not. We felt that this approach is important
because many of our businesses in rural
Again, there are limits set under the
guidelines of that program, whereby we are only allowed to expend so many
dollars in relation to the cost of the total project. We allow that money to flow as quickly as
possible to let them get on with their work.
This is where the bulk of our money has gone to date, more in the
Feasibility Studies program than any other programs.
Under the REA program, again, this is a loan
program. It is not a grant program. Here we allow the proponent to go to the bank
of his or her choice, or credit union, and if the project is one that is said
to be viable‑‑again, that decision is made by the credit union or
the bank‑‑then we will simply guarantee the loan. We will not guarantee 100 percent of it, we
will guarantee 80 percent of the loan.
So we are only exposed to 80 percent; the bank is exposed for 20
percent.
The
beauty of that program is that it is a repayable program, so it is a business
approach to lending money, if you like, to small business. The other thing is that the banks are then
doing the administration. We do not have
to hire people to do the administration for us because it is done by the local
bank. The local bank is the one who
knows that client better than we could in the Department of Rural
Development. I think this is a very
exciting program. We have had over a
hundred applications to date from rural
So
these are the programs under the REDI umbrella.
Again, you will not find programs like this anywhere else in
We
are not trying to reinvent the wheel.
Where possible, we work with the Department of Industry, Trade and
Tourism. We have a very co‑operative
working relationship. Their Finance
branch does a lot of the due diligence for us so that we do not have to
duplicate the administrative process in our department as well. There is a lot
of work that goes back and forth between the Department of Industry, Trade and
Tourism and our department.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, if I could, to the Minister of Family Services, say that
this is, in a very summarized way, the way that the REDI program works for
rural Manitoba.
Mr. Gilleshammer: I thank the minister for that.
Point of
Order
Mr. Gaudry: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
the minister mentioned a little while ago that some information he could not
get the critics because it was confidential, but I think the Minister of Family
Services sits at the same table in cabinet.
I think he could get that information, rather than wasting precious time
of the critics here in questioning the minister.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Gilleshammer: I want to thank the committee for that
clarification in expansion of the REDI program.
Thank you.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Administration and Finance (b)
Executive Support (2) Other Expenditures $77,800‑‑pass.
At
this time we would ask the minister's staff to leave during consideration of his
salary.
1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 13.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,235,900 for Rural Development, Administration and
Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
DECENTRALIZATION
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): We will now move on to the department of
Decentralization, page 145. There is no
ministerial staff on this one, so the staff can just take their seats.
Hon. Leonard Derkach
(Minister responsible for Decentralization): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I do have staff here.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Mr. Minister, please bring them up and
introduce them.
Mr. Derkach: Again I am joined at the table by the deputy
minister, Mr. Winston Hodgins, and the co‑ordinator for the
Decentralization unit, Mr. Syd Reimer.
* (2130)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Would the honourable minister have an opening
statement?
Mr. Derkach: Yes, I do, Mr. Deputy Chairperson. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make
these introductory comments on Decentralization during the 1993‑94
Estimates process.
I
would, first of all, like to remind the honourable members in the Legislature
that the purpose of decentralization was indeed, and still is, as it was in
January 1989 when Premier Filmon said, the government of
The
underlying principle was, and remains, that it had to be economically feasible
as well as enhancing the delivery of a specific program. Very often in the past, people living outside
of
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
Could I ask the honourable member to read his information into the
record after the minister has finished, please?
Mr. Derkach: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson. As I was saying, a
commitment was made to the Union of Manitoba Municipalities at their annual
convention in 1989 to move 500 provincial government and 100 Crown corporation
positions out of
To
date, I am pleased to indicate that we have decentralized a total of 631
positions, with another 150 positions planned to be moved in the near
future. This would surpass our original
commitment by something like 100 jobs.
In total, close to $15 million per annum in salaries is now being flowed
to rural
As
many of my colleagues in the House know, transplanting the many jobs is not an
easy task. Many civil servants were not
pleased with the initiative. The
government has tried very successfully, I might say, in accommodating these
individuals. Options for redeployment and retirement incentives were offered to
those who were not interested in moving.
Many exercised their options to find employment elsewhere, but I must
tell this committee not once have I heard a negative comment from the people
who have moved. These people are now
enjoying the attributes of rural communities.
The high quality of life, the lower living costs, as well as greater sense
of community involvement‑‑it has been a positive experience for all
of them.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I have heard in the House all the arguments put forward by
both parties as to the negative effects of decentralization. I can honestly say that in my travels across
rural
As
minister responsible, many questions have been directed to me by members of the
Assembly as well as the public. I can
tell this committee that, under decentralization, jobs were not moved from one
rural community to another. In some instances
this may have occurred, but only due to departmental reorganization, budgetary
adjustments, and not to decentralization.
I will continue to fulfill our government's commitment to locate jobs in
those areas that have not yet received their decentralized positions. Again, I must stress that the original
principles of decentralization must apply to all moves and they must be
feasible and enhance delivery.
Efficiency of the department, of any
department, in delivering services to rural
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I would like to tell this committee that we have
experienced the opposite with that decentralization move. As a matter of fact, we are seeing that the
turnaround time has been reduced dramatically.
We are seeing that staff are less in number than they when they were in
Winnipeg and have had responsibility added to their workload, and indeed, I
have had letters personally from users of the service who have indicated that
they are extremely pleased with the services that are being provided from the
community of Winkler.
Additionally I might say, and the Minister of
Education and Training (Mrs. Vodrey) is here, but if you compare the 77 percent
failure or incompletion rate that we had with that branch before and compare it
to the completion and success rate today, you would see a very dramatic
difference.
I
guess the conclusion is that we can deliver services from outside of the city
as effectively as we can right here in the city, and just because this is the
centre of government does not mean that all services have to be delivered here.
In
closing, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to address decentralization as an
important initiative in our overall government strategy. We have had to make some very difficult and
sometimes painful decisions as a government over the last few years. However, I would like to say that we are
committed to streamline our departments and make government efficient. The staffing adjustments that departments
have had to realize this year have affected all of
Decentralization, I feel, has suffered the
effects of some of these decisions in our rural part of our province, but we
must indicate that had we not had decentralization as an initiative there would
have been a greater impact as a result of the budgetary decisions that have had
to be taken. So at this point I would
like to indicate that we will continue to live up to our commitments as much as
we can, given the fiscal restraints that we have to work within, and it is not
an initiative that has been closed and is dead.
It is an initiative that is ongoing.
As a matter of fact, we have some communities that are coming very close
to receiving some decentralization jobs in the next little while.
We
will work with other departments in government because in order to be able to
be successful we have to work with the various departments to identify the
positions, and then we have to work with the communities that are going to
receive these positions and have facilities for them, and it is largely to the
work of someone like our co‑ordinator, Mr. Syd Reimer that we have had
the success that we have enjoyed.
So,
Mr. Deputy Chairperson, at this time I would be pleased to accept some
questions from the opposition members on the decentralization initiative.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister for his opening
statement. Would the critic for the
official opposition party, the honourable member for the Interlake have an
opening statement?
Mr. Clif Evans
(Interlake): Thank you, not so much an opening statement
as well as questions in the statement, so perhaps the minister can get back to
me with some of the answers.
Yes, decentralization is important, extremely
important, and I would like to see more of it, as the minister has indicated.
However, I would also like to see more of it to areas that in fact have need
for decentralized jobs and in areas where jobs through attrition have been lost
in areas and communities and the opportunity to decentralize some of those jobs
is potentially there.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy Chairperson,
in the Chair)
I
think the minister should really be looking at, when he is looking at
decentralization‑‑and I would, in fact, like to sit down with the
minister and his department and go over decentralization since its inception
and deal with the jobs that have been moved to rural Manitoba and exactly‑‑I
hope the minister understands what I am saying‑‑so I can be more
aware, too, of just where all these decentralized jobs have gone to, what
departments, and if he can provide me with some information on that I would
appreciate it. The fact is that also if
they are so committed to decentralization, the budget dropped $1.5 million in
decentralization, and if we are so committed to that, well, then why‑‑(interjection)
The minister indicated that decentralization is important. Now if the budget has dropped, why is it at a
standstill then? Why are we not moving
with it?
* (2140)
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I thank the member
for his opening statement. Does the
member for the second opposition have an opening statement?
Mr. Neil Gaudry (St.
Boniface): Yes, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think
it will be in the form of questions because of the fact that we did support
decentralization in the past.
I
think it is the process when it first started, and I think we understand that
when you start a new process of doing something, there is always glitches you
come across, and I think we accept that.
We
look at the fact that he is mentioning there is going to be another 150 jobs
moved to the rural areas, and he has reduced the budget by $1.5 million. Are these 150 new jobs he is going to
decentralize, are they part of this budget of '93‑94, or the 150, is that
going to be over a period of two years, three years?
Those are the questions I have at this
stage. Then I am prepared to pass this,
because of the fact that we supported decentralization, and I think we still do
support it.
The Acting Deputy
Chairperson (Mr. Reimer): I thank the member
for his opening statements.
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I do not know
if I can cover the broad spectrum of questions the members asked in one fell
swoop, but I will ask members to perhaps restate their questions as we go
along.
One
of the concerns the member for the Interlake (Mr. Clif Evans) raised was, he
said he would like to sometime go through each of the areas that received
decentralization, what department went there and perhaps the number of people
who were decentralized to that area. Of
course, there is no better opportunity than right now to do that because we do
have staff here who can assist us with this.
We
have, as I said, over 600 positions that have been decentralized, and if I
could just go through them. For example,
in Altona, Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, the Department of Rural Development's
business development bond office has been relocated to Altona, as well as the
housing office has been set up in Altona.
We have a total of 15 staff who have now been decentralized to Altona.
In Arborg,
we have the MPIC claims centre has been located in Arborg with a total of four
people who have been given to that area.
In Ashern, we have Highways and Transportation. That is their Construction and Maintenance
program. We have two staff who have been
located there.
In
Beausejour, again from the Department of Highways, we have the construction and
maintenance program which has located three people; Hydro with two people;
Labour, the fire prevention office with six people; MPIC claims centre with
five people; Natural Resources with one person, and Rural Development with two
people. In total, 19 people have been
relocated to Beausejour.
In
We
have had a fairly active decentralization program in
Carberry, we have had Family Services move out
to Carberry with a program which would involve 8.5 staff years. Carman, our Agriculture department, Soils and
Crops, with 31.5 SYs that have gone to Carman.
An Honourable Member: How many?
Mr. Derkach: Staff years, 31.5 SYs, yes.
Churchill, Hydro, with one person to date.
Dauphin, Education, again, with Native
Education with four people; the Environment department with one person; Health
department with one person; Labour with one person, for a total of seven to
Dauphin.
An Honourable Member: Seven?
Mr. Derkach: That is right.
Deloraine, again, my department, Rural
Development, our Development office there with four people, Mr. Acting Deputy
Chairperson.
Flin Flon, Energy and Mines with one person;
Manitoba Health Services Commission with eight people, for a total of nine to
Flin Flon.
Garden Hill, we have moved one from Hydro. Gillam, 20 from Hydro. Gimli, Agriculture with one person; Housing
with five; Hydro with two; Labour with one; and Natural Resources with one, for
a total of 10 in Gimli.
Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson,
Minnedosa, we have Agriculture with the Crown
Lands branch with 15 people; Health with one person; Natural Resources with
four.
Morden, we have had Agriculture move out there
with one person; Health with 13 persons; Labour with one person; and Manitoba
Telephone System with six.
Morris, we have had Agriculture with two
people; Culture, Heritage with 22 people; Natural Resources, the water
management area with four; and Hydro with one.
Neepawa, Natural Resources, the Lands branch
with 25 people.
Niverville, Hydro, one person; Natural
Resources, three people; and other departments have moved three other people
out there.
The
community of Portage, we have Agriculture with the Manitoba Crop Insurance
Corporation with eight; Education in aviation training with seven and a half;
Government Services with land acquisition of 34; Health‑‑I am not
sure what program it is‑‑but there are two people there; Highways,
Planning and Design, with seven people; Hydro with one; Labour with various
people from various parts of their area with three; MTS with six; and Rural
Development with two, for a total of 70 people in Portage.
Roblin, Agriculture with one person; Education
with one person in Workforce 2000; Housing with seven; and Natural Resources
with two, for a total of 11.
In
Russell, we have had Education with 11; Energy and Mines with two. Ste. Anne, Labour, the fire protection area
with four.
Selkirk, Agriculture, Soil Conservation with
one; Government Services with four; Highways with four; Rural Development with
one; Hydro with three; and MTS with seven, for a total of 20 to Selkirk.
Seven Sisters, we have had Hydro with one.
In
* (2150)
Steinbach, we have had Agriculture with one;
Environment with two; the Clean Environment Commission with three; Natural
Resources with 12; Justice with one; and MTS with four, for a total of 23.
Stonewall, Agriculture, the Animal Industry
branch with one.
Teulon, Agriculture with two, Labour with one.
The
Pas, Energy and Mines, one; Environment, two; Highways and Transportation, two;
Rural Development, one; Northern Affairs with two; Hydro with one; MTS with
one, for a total of 10.
Thompson, Culture, Heritage with one; Highways
and Transportation, two; Northern Affairs, two; CEDF, 12; and another program
from Northern Affairs with four; Hydro, 31; MTS, one, for a total in Thompson
of 53.
Treherne, we have Hydro with one.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
In
Virden, we have Natural Resources with six; Energy and Mines with four; and
Agriculture with one, for a total of 11 in Virden.
In
Vita, we have Hydro with one. In
Wawanesa, we have the Distance Education and Technology branch with two.
In
Winkler, we have Education with 19; Environment with three; MTS with four, for
a total of 26. This is a total of 631
positions.
So
I hope this sort of outlines where we have moved people. Indeed, there are
still other communities that are on the list which we are trying to accommodate
to the best of our ability.
Mr. Gaudry: That 150 you were saying you were going to
decentralize, is it over a period of a year, two years or three years?
Mr. Derkach: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there was also a
question‑‑I will answer that question, as well, but the member for
St. Boniface asked about the budget.
What we have found with Decentralization was
that we did not have to expend the amount of money that was allocated under
Decentralization because, indeed, we were coming in with lower rates for rent
than we had anticipated, and under the budgetary restraint program, because we
did not have to move as many people out to an office, it meant that we could
save on office space. So by and large we have saved a bundle of money, if I
might use that term, under the decentralization initiative, so we felt that
this year, we could safely adjust our budget and still live up to our
commitments.
The
150 commitments that we speak about we are going to try to accommodate in this
fiscal year as best possible, but I must tell the member we have to also keep
in mind the fact that some communities have space available, and it is not
difficult to move into space that is already there, but where you have to go
through the process of tendering for space and then waiting for that space to
become available, and then redeploying staff, it takes a while longer.
So
whether we can accommodate all 150 this year is certainly unknown at this time,
but I can tell you our co‑ordinator and our staff are working very
diligently to try and move as many and as quickly as we possibly can.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 1. Decentralization $500,000, Total
Appropriations‑‑pass.
Resolution 34.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $500,000 for Decentralization for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1994.
I
thank the minister.
CULTURE,
HERITAGE AND CITIZENSHIP
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): We will now move into the Department of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship on page 27.
Does the honourable minister have an opening
statement?
Hon. Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister
of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship): Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, it is my pleasure to introduce the Estimates for Manitoba
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Through its programs, my department
contributes to a sense of pride and well‑being in Manitobans, supports
self‑sufficiency, attempts to empower individuals and communities,
enhances access to the benefits of participation in society and promotes racial
harmony.
The
impact of this department's program areas is not only on our quality of life
and to our economy through provision of jobs and incomes to Manitobans, but
also on the long‑term health of hundreds of thousands of Manitobans who
participate in the innumerable activities which make
The
province's support for the arts has remained strong in the face of serious
strain on our fiscal resources. While
federal and civic funding have been sharply reduced, we have tried to maintain
reasonable levels of support. We
recognize the value of the arts in enhancing our quality of life and its
economic impact on the community in the form of employment, expenditures,
taxes, and tourism. We have worked over
the past year to bring both government and private funders together to
understand our mutual constraints and to plan to streamline our processes,
stressing the need for organizations to work together to share resources.
Over the past year the demand for library
service has been increasing. At 11
percent of the operating budget, our support to Winnipeg Public is very
adequate compared to other major cities in the nation. With regard to services outside of
Last year two new regional libraries were
established: North Norfolk MacGregor
Regional and Valley Regional for the Town and R.M. of Morris.
The
focus of our thrust in Historic Resources has been to develop a movement within
communities and community groups across
The
14‑member Heritage Grants Advisory Council, nominated by provincial,
regional and local heritage organizations, will help government allocate
lottery revenue earmarked for heritage protection. To date, it has recommended the allocation of
just over $335,000 in heritage grants to 65 community organizations. It will be
completing another round of reviews shortly.
Having unveiled
A
partnership with the Red Cross in a new northern water‑safety program has
the potential to reduce significantly the high incidence of loss of life from
drowning in northern
A
partnership with my department, the Department of Education and northern
communities yielded the first graduates from our Northern Recreation Director
Pilot Project in the fall of 1992. While further study may be required to bear
this out in more concrete terms, the facts are, for example, that in one
community with a director for the full term the incidence of crime dropped by
as much as 27 percent. This program
appears to be very successful in providing communities with the means to
involve more residents in activities which contribute to community peace, pride
and health.
* (2200)
The
Citizenship Division was created to improve services aimed at the immigration
and settlement needs of new Canadians. We are placing a high priority on
working with the federal government to develop an immigration agreement.
We
have also been developing pilot projects in conjunction with other government
departments. As an example, we have been
working with the Youth Justice Committee and ethnocultural communities to
address services to immigrants charged with family violence related offences
and their needs.
Immigrant community resource persons will be
trained to interpret for probation officers, deliver group educational
sessions, and make prevention strategy recommendations on family violence in
their respective communities. Citizenship
has also been working in partnership with Manitoba Highways to translate driver
testing materials into more than 20 languages improving access to immigrants.
We
have placed a priority on the credentials recognition program, which helps
immigrants who have professional or technical training in other countries to
have their education and work experience assessed and evaluated on a more
equitable basis. This is in recognition
of the fact that immigrants contribute immensely to the province's social and
economic fabric. Our goal is to make the
evaluation and transition process a more accessible and effective one for
immigrants.
In
my department's effort to meet government guidelines for budget reductions and
more effective service procurement, we have begun contracting out production
work previously supplied by the Queen's Printer. As a result, Queen's Printer ceased all in‑house
production services on March 31 of this year.
Potential savings to government as a result of this decision to contract
with private‑sector suppliers is expected to exceed $1 million in the
1993‑94 fiscal year.
Of
the 39 positions affected by this move since February, we have placed 29
people, including one term position, into other government offices. Six staff accepted the severance packages
offered, and only four persons remain on the redeployment list. The department
rigorously provided skills evaluation, retraining and other support services to
make the transitions as smooth as possible for the involved individuals.
The
projected $1 million figure is based on several factors, such as the
elimination of equipment replacement costs and savings ranging from 15 percent
to 50 percent on services contracted out.
The decision to contract out the work previously provided by the Queen's
Printer was not easily arrived at, but this government will continue to review
ways in which it can operate more efficiently.
It will continue to make the decisions necessary, dealing compassionately
with its staff when exploring how to implement those decisions. On this score, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
Manitobans as taxpayers expect no less.
This is only a brief overview of some of the
elements of the Estimates before you.
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship is very proud of its many successes in
working with Manitobans to address issues of importance to us and to our
future.
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Chairperson.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: We thank the minister for those
comments. Does the official opposition
critic, the honourable member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen), have any opening
comments?
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Deputy Chair, just a few comments to
begin with. I think in earlier
Estimates, we have looked at some of the assumptions the minister has about
this department, and I think in earlier years we have established that the
minister does not consider this to be a policy department and that in other
years, she has also essentially argued that culture is the same thing as
leisure and that the two are interchangeable.
We
have also looked at whether this is, in fact, a research department or
not. It seems that where other groups do
research, this particular department is interested in co‑operating or
learning from it, but that in itself, it does not in the cultural area undertake
much long‑term planning with the community or, indeed, in the department
itself insofar as culture and the arts are concerned.
We
have seen some initiatives over the years from this department. There have been one or two sections of the
DeFehr Report which have been implemented, particularly the changes to the
departmental organization.
There has been, I think, much disappointment
in the arts community about the slowness with which the government is acting on
the DeFehr recommendations. I think particularly
the initiation of an arts act is something which has been talked about for a
long time, and yet, again, there has not been an arts act or even any
indication of it in the legislative process of this year, so that in looking at
the Estimates for next year, I would like to be able to discuss with the
minister whether she is considering such an act and what kind of assumptions or
process she is going to develop around that.
There are other sections of the DeFehr Report which
I think people would be interested in having more public information on,
particularly the recommendations dealing with arts education. There are some
areas in recreation which the minister spoke of in her opening statement which
I think are very commendable. We have
spoken on these before, the northern recreation directors.
I
think the minister might be interested in knowing or reading the Hansard for, I
think it is May 13, of the federal House of Commons in Aboriginal Affairs
Committee, which speaks very highly of the
In
other areas, we have seen initiatives in legislation such as the white spruce
legislation, and this year, we see the coat of arms legislation. I do have some questions for the minister on
where this fits with the visual identity program and what the cost of the
implementation is going to be of that coat of arms legislation and where it
fits in the Estimates of this particular department.
We
also have a bill presently before us which I think does have an impact on the
heritage area and I would be interested in hearing from the minister on
that. That is Bill 52, which allows
donations to museums. I am wondering
particularly why the minister has not used the provisions of the‑‑I
have forgotten the exact name of it‑‑heritage act for that and what
the relationship is between The Heritage Manitoba Act and the current
provisions of Bill 52 insofar as they relate to museums.
There have been some upheavals in the Culture
and Heritage area of the department which we would be interested in discussing,
I think particularly the dislocation as the community side in the Heritage
Federation and the granting programs and that.
I think there are some questions remaining in the community about the
expenditure of funds from that and whether, in fact, there has been a carry‑over
to this year and how those funds have been distributed from last year to this
year, which the minister might want to put on the record.
The
Arts Council, an arm's‑length agency, unlike the new Heritage Federation
distribution agency, also experienced considerable turmoil; first from a
particular series of articles in the press, and second of all, from the abrupt
dismissal of its long‑serving executive director.
My
concerns in that area, as the minister knows, have been for her understanding,
knowledge, and concern for the due process in the dismissal of that particular
executive director, being careful to maintain the arm's‑length distance,
but also as a minister to be very concerned about the due process in that
particular dismissal. So I would be
interested in exploring that further.
In
libraries, I think we are feeling tremendous pressure, both in the city of
As
I understand it, the minister has informally had this report now for two
years. She may formally have had it for
less than that, and she says in her opening statements that she has distributed
it to her cabinet colleagues. I think
there is growing concern that this should be available in the public and that
the public discussions on that libraries report should begin.
I
note in the funding area of the department a continued shift away from the
small innovative organizations to the larger organizations. I would be interested in the minister's
justifications and thoughts on that. I
noticed there has been a shift in the cultural industries funding, although
part of it has been maintained. There
has been a shift in the support for publishing and for the encouragement of
distribution in the publishing area particularly. I am interested in the justifications for
that and why that particular area was singled out.
* (2210)
In
looking at staff salaries, there seems to be some peculiarities in this
department. I do not mean peculiarities
in the sense of anything fishy, but I certainly see some salaries which are
going up, and some salaries, particularly at the across‑the‑board
technical, professional and managerial level, which are going down.
We
see, for example, in Heritage, or at the archives or the Arts Branch, that
those levels of salaries are being decreased slightly, and we see in other
areas, in Information‑‑when we get to the particular areas, I will
discuss it with the minister, and, of course, the deputy minister's salary has
increased, as well.
I
am interested in discussing with the minister some of the changes in the
numbers across the board in Information Services, again, to try and get on the
record what indeed are the right numbers, because there is certainly a great
deal of discrepancy from one year to the next in what is actually written on
the sheet.
Finally, I would be interested, if the
minister wanted to reply, on the overall approach of this department to the
three or four principles involved in the funding and enhancement of
I
know that across the board in
The
minister spent some time looking at the Queen's Printer privatization in
I
believe this was done very quickly with very little consultation with people
who had been long‑serving members of this department. I was concerned and still am concerned, as
the minister knows, by the provision through Workforce 2000 of training grants
to the people who, in effect, took the jobs from these people. So it is that kind of government policy which
particularly concerns me.
Mr. Deputy
Chairperson: We thank the honourable
member for Wolseley for those comments.
Does the critic from the second opposition party the honourable member
for Crescentwood have an opening statement?
Ms. Avis Gray
(Crescentwood): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, because of the
lateness of the hour and the fact that we do not have very many hours left in
the Estimates process, I would defer my comments until perhaps the end, but
obviously our concerns about the department will become obvious as we get into
the details line by line.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: I thank the critic for that.
Under
At
this time, we invite the minister's staff to join us at the table, and we ask
that the minister introduce her staff present.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would like to
introduce my Deputy Minister, Tom Carson; ADM of Culture, Heritage and
Recreation programming, Lou‑Anne Buhr; and Dave Paton, Executive Director
of Administration and Finance.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I had the opportunity to listen quite intently to the
critic for the official opposition as she talked about the Department of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. I
understand she is the critic that will be dealing with the Culture, Heritage
and Recreation's library side of the department. We will have someone else for
Multiculturalism and Citizenship, another critic, and the same with the second
official opposition. I look forward to
discussion on both sides of the department.
We
have for the last couple of years, I guess, since the member for Wolseley (Ms.
Friesen) has been the critic for the Department of Culture, had many, long
hours of discussion on really what role and the mandate and the responsibility
of the Department of Culture is and how we serve our respective clients, which,
I might say, is very varied. There are
many different components to the Department of Culture dealing not only with
the arts and recreation and heritage, but we have responsibility for the
Archives and for libraries and for information resources, as well as on the
other side with Citizenship and Multiculturalism. So we travel the width and
the breadth of the province, you might say, dealing with many, many
individuals, and have an impact on many people's lives through the programming
that is offered in this department.
We
have made many advances, many changes over the last five years, which I really
believe does provide for more empowerment for Manitobans to determine their
individual needs, their community needs.
Our department is there to be responsive to what the community
determines what they want to see in the area of arts programming, recreation
programming and heritage programming. I
believe that there is a sense of pride in the accomplishments that we have
derived over the last number of years where there is accessibility in many
areas for many Manitobans to enjoy an enhanced quality of life.
When we talk about the programming and the
services that are provided in the Department of Culture, we also do have to
look in many respects at the programs that are provided and try to assess the
economic viability, because there are two components. When governments right across the nation are
experiencing very difficult economic times and having to make very difficult
decisions on choosing priorities, every department has to pass the test to some
degree of how well we are able to balance the needs‑‑and I do say
the needs‑‑not necessarily the wants of all Manitobans, but the
needs of Manitobans, in respect to a better quality of life and a community
desire to really have certain aspects of that qualify of life included in the
programming that is provided. So we
balance the community needs versus what those programmings will do to ensure
that there is some economic viability also and sustainability for Manitobans.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, I believe we have accomplished a lot. The critic for the official opposition did talk
about, I guess, access to the arts and to arts programming and indicated, too,
that there seems to be a decrease in participation right across the
province. I would imagine she would be
talking about our whole nation. I think
* (2220)
If
we just look at an article in the Winnipeg Free Press dated July 10, it was
just this past weekend‑‑I guess that was Saturday's paper. The headline reads: Refined Winnipeggers f1ock to cultural
offerings. I think that says a lot about
I
think that says something about Winnipeggers, about Manitobans. It says something very positive. We have always said that we are second to
none in our offering of cultural activities to our community, and I would tend
to think that Winnipeggers, Manitobans agree.
The
survey, which reflects the 1991‑92 season, compares five major Canadian
centres, each with a large symphony, a theatre, an opera and a ballet
company. The figures compiled by the
arts lobby group show a total of 336,000 tickets sold for
Of
the five major Canadian centres surveyed,
I
also do want to indicate that our per capita provincial funding to our major
institutions is the highest across the nation.
I think this is a very important point to make because so very often we
are criticized, and I mentioned in my opening remarks that the City of
I
think we have attempted to stay the course, because we recognize the value and
the contribution that the arts make, not only to the quality of life but also
to the economic viability of our province.
We have attempted, when we have tried to balance our expenditures
throughout government, to ensure that we provided funding that we believed we
could afford to provide to ensure that our cultural institutions maintained
their community, maintained their audience participation. Also, as I started to say, we are the highest
per capita funders across the country at $3.43 per capita of any city.
I
guess that, if you look at the per capita funding and we are No. 1 at $3.43 per
capita,
I
guess that, as a result of us providing that per capita support, we are able to
lever more support from Canada Council also, which bodes well and obviously
contributes to the enhancement of our cultural life and the cultural life that
we have become so terribly proud of as Manitobans.
We
have in the past had major discussions also on whether indeed we are a policy
department, whether we are a research department. I think the key point that has to be made in
looking at what our department provides for Manitobans is the fact that we are
there knowing that we will always have to have public support of the arts, but
we also do want to look at empowerment of communities, of community
organizations and of individuals to determine themselves what direction they
should be going and providing a leadership role and a source of funding when we
look at what a community wants.
I
really believe that if something is definitely community driven‑‑and
that is what we are seeing across our new heritage committees that are set up‑‑we
see the community is empowering itself and using the resources in the community
to ensure that they know what direction they are going, and I think that is
where our government, as a provincial department, plays a leadership role in
trying to facilitate and providing the support funding for the very worthwhile
activities that are ongoing in the province.
I
probably have been rambling on a bit, and maybe I should stop at this point in
time and ask if there are specific questions that members of the opposition
would like answers to.
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: Yes. I
did not mention the community heritage program when the minister spoke earlier,
and I am glad to see that is being continued and that the legislative framework
and policy framework that was established under The Heritages Resources Act‑‑under
the NDP in fact‑‑is being put into place.
I
wonder if the minister could tell us‑‑she has emphasized the value
that Manitobans place upon the arts and the way in which attendance has been
maintained‑‑what the amount of increased private support has been
in
When the government two years ago cut 20
percent across the board and eliminated funding to a number of groups, one of
the arguments it made was that private sponsorship and private funding had to
be relied upon by these groups. We had
some discussion about the way in which that benefits some groups and not others
and to some extent distorts the nature of cultural funding across the province. So I am wondering what information the minister
has on the increase in private support and where it has gone.
Mrs. Mitchelson: In 1992 there was an economic impact study
done by Dunwoody and that study did indicate that over the five previous years
not only was attendance up and earned revenues were up by about 6 percent, but
private sector donations were up by 10 percent per year over the previous five
years. So that does tell me that there
is not only the audience and participation support, but indeed that the
community out there through the private sector recognizes and realizes the
value of the arts to
Ms. Friesen: The issue was, where that private funding
goes. Could the minister tell us, yes, there has been an increase, but who are
they funding?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think it would be fair to say that it would
be the five largest performing arts organizations. That is MTC, PTE, Royal Winnipeg Ballet, the
Manitoba Opera and the Winnipeg Symphony.
Ms. Friesen: Does the minister have any information on the
either increase or decrease of private funding to other organizations since all
of the large companies, the big five in fact, have received and still receive
substantial subventions from the federal government and from the provincial
government? The whole argument about private funding is in fact that it does go
to those groups which have a better opportunity to raise money themselves and
that it certainly goes to the tried and true, to the classic, to the imported,
rather than to the innovative and to the Manitoba based. Those are the standard arguments which are
made about private funding everywhere.
So I am looking for some information from the minister on how in fact
that is affecting
* (2230)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed
that the economic impact study done by Dunwoody did not deal with the smaller
arts organizations. It did deal with the
larger, the five performing arts organizations that I have just indicated. I am of the understanding that the Manitoba
Arts Council would be taking that into consideration. I think that would be a question that will be
fairly asked of the Arts Council and possibly they could provide some of that
information. We do not have that
information.
Ms. Friesen: But the minister's argument when two years she
cut those organizations and made those 20 percent reductions across the board
in many areas of cultural grants was that private funding was the way to
go. I would assume that the minister
herself would have ensured that there was some follow‑up there to see
that in fact that policy was feasible and that there had in fact been private
support for the kinds of organizations which had suffered the reductions from
the government.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess maybe
we are talking apples and oranges at this point in time. I guess you are talking about the community
arts that had reductions in their funding lines through the department over the
last couple of years, not the smaller performing arts organizations that would
be funded by the Manitoba Arts Council.
Okay. I was misunderstanding then
the line of questioning.
All
I can say is that our community arts organizations are thriving and are
healthy, that they are doing very well.
There is no increase in deficit.
As far as my being able to determine where the funding is coming from
that is keeping them healthy and vibrant and viable, I cannot give that
specific information, but I do know that they do not have larger deficits or
deficits to any great degree throughout the community, so they are managing.
I
have very much respect and very much confidence in the community arts
organizations throughout our province and the people and the volunteers who are
involved. Everyone recognizes and realizes
that there are difficult economic times and most of us are having to attempt to
do more with less. I believe that our
arts community throughout the province, our local community arts organizations,
are doing well and they are rising to that challenge. Obviously, they are able to find the funding
from somewhere to continue the kinds of programming that their communities have
come to expect.
One
of the things that we did do was change the way that community arts
organizations applied for their funding.
It used to be on a project‑by‑project basis and we had many
complaints that many organizations were having to apply 10 or 15 times in a
year for a very small grant. There were
times when I was sending out a letter with a cheque attached for $10. It costs much more within the bureaucracy to
process a cheque for $10 than actually benefited the arts community.
What we have done is gone to block funding, in
fact, so we look at the evaluation of last year's projects or, when we started
the program evaluated the previous year, gave them a block funding grant and
then do an assessment at the end of the year.
If they do not live up to the expectations that the community has set or
the goals that the organization has set, we might have to look at a change in
their funding. If they are still
managing to do the things that they set out to do, I think it is less
cumbersome, less burdensome.
It
takes an awful lot of time for a community volunteer or the sole support
person, I guess, for an organization to have to spend all their time applying
and filling out applications for funding when that time could be better spent
ensuring that the programming they have put into place is dealing in a positive
way with the community that they represent.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have very
little time today, so the message from the minister that in fact arts
organizations across Manitoba are healthy and happy, I think, will be good news
and fresh news to quite a few of them.
I
think we might want to look at how they have met the reduction in funding and
whether they have been able to have access to private funds and whether this
reduction has been met by repetition of performances, by reduction of
expectations, by reduction of one performance, by taking away the smaller
experimental groups such as was contemplated with the Warehouse, for example.
I
wanted to ask the minister about two specific things dealing with the
legislative process that I mentioned in my introduction. One is the provisions in Bill 52 for
museums. I wonder if the minister could
give us some background on that and where that fits into her department, since
she does have responsibility for the heritage act which provided, had similar‑‑has
in fact, because it is still in existence, similar provisions, although I would
see some differences. I wondered if the
minister could comment on that.
For
example, one of the things the minister might want to consider is why museums
were included and why archives were not included in Bill 52.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr.
Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess this bill was formulated at the request of
the Museum of Man and Nature coming forward to government indicating, because
they are in the middle of a major fundraising capital campaign in the community
at the present time, they were wondering whether in fact there might be some
consideration given to a piece of legislation that would allow Manitobans to
contribute in a major way to a capital foundation and get the tax benefit
accrued to them. I think we all
recognize and realize that there is a lot of old family money in
So
as a result of that request we started negotiation. Of course, we consulted with the Department
of Finance and ultimately with the federal government, because it had to be a
process of negotiation with the federal government. All they would agree to at this point in time
was universities, hospitals and museums.
They were not prepared at this point in time to broaden that in any way,
so we were able to accomplish that much and that is what the legislation is
about. It does allow for tax deductions
for larger donated amounts.
Ms. Friesen: But there is already on the books an act
called the heritage act, not The Heritage Resources Act, but the heritage act,
which does make provision for exactly that, for people to be able to donate
real property and money to the Crown for a tax benefit. To my knowledge, it has been very rarely
used, but it has been there since the 1960s, and I am wondering legally why the
government felt that it had to put museums into this other act.
Also, could the minister tell me which
department of the federal government she was negotiating with who chose to
exclude archives?
* (2240)
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed
that The Heritage Manitoba Act would keep you under the normal taxable
guidelines where you could only receive a receipt for 20 percent of your
taxable income, whereas this one lifts that limit so that you can receive a
receipt for 100 percent of that donation.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister tell me why archives were
excluded from this. Which department of
the federal government chose to exclude that?
Is it the Finance department?
They are in flux at the moment, but since usually museums and archives
are included in this because documents, literary inheritance, those kinds of
things which need to be evaluated are often included in similar kinds of bills
and are in other provinces, I just wondered why the exclusion here.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I am informed
that the federal tax officials had to approve the categories and Manitoba
Finance was restricted into how broad the categories could be, so I cannot
answer that question. I would imagine
that it would have to be asked of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) because
it would have been his department that did the negotiations with the federal
government.
Ms. Friesen: The second thing I was going to ask about was
the new
An Honourable Member: Coat of arms.
Ms. Friesen: Coat of arms, that is what I am looking for,
the new coat of arms. This is the
department which has the responsibility for visible symbols and has a budget for
that. Could the minister tell us what the budget implications are of the
adoption of the new
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, we have heard
several comments from members of the opposition as this piece of legislation
was introduced and has been debated during second reading.
I
guess I take some exception to some of the comments that have been made and the
lack of understanding of members of the opposition of what exactly an augmented
coat of arms is. It is something that is
bestowed upon a province by the Queen, the first time ever it has been done by
her representative which would be the Governor‑General of Canada. It has always in the past been done by the
Queen herself when she has visited a certain province.
We
were ninth out of 10 provinces across the country to have an augmented coat of
arms bestowed upon us and I would imagine there were other governments in
power, and I tried to do a little research.
I do not think I got an answer from my department on whether Governor‑General
Schreyer was ever the Governor‑General of the country when the Queen
bestowed an augmented coat of arms, and I did not ever hear any major outcry
from those who represent the Queen about her prerogative I guess.
As
I said, there are eight other provinces that do have an augmented coat of arms
and it is something that is done by the chief herald in Ottawa, the design and
the drawing and takes into consideration from the beginning of time up until
the present all the different waves of immigration and it has a lot of history
behind it.
I
do not know if the member for Wolseley was at the ceremony last fall‑‑
An Honourable Member: Kevin wants a free vote.
Mrs. Mitchelson: The member for
I
want to make it very clear that there is going to be no additional cost. This is something that does not have to be
used. We have put it in legislation, I
guess, to protect the patent which I think occurs on a regular basis when this
happens to a province but we still can use the old coat of arms. We do not have to get new stationery, new
letterhead and we do not have to use that.
It is something that has happened across the country to every other
province and I guess it was
I
think when we travel to other provinces, I have had comments from people who
have indicated that they have seen the augmented coat of arms displayed in very
prominent places in other provinces and there is no requirement by the
government at all to spend any money tearing anything down or, in fact, using
that augmented coat of arms, except when they deem advisable for a ceremonial
occasion if they should so choose.
* (2250)
Mr. Reg Alcock
(Osborne): Except for the one in the rotunda‑‑ugly.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I guess I take
some offence to the member for Osborne.
I do not want to get him mixed up with the member for Wolseley (Ms. Friesen),
because she did not make those comments‑‑but the member for Osborne
who has as little respect for artists in the
We
are asking our
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, my questions were
directed at cost and usage. The minister
is essentially saying it does not have to be used but in fact the legislation
proposes that it replace that 1909 coat of arms.
That 1909 coat of arms forms part of the
flag. Is it the intention of the
minister to eventually, over the short term or the long term, change the flag?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all it does is augment
the coat of arms. There will be no
change of anything, including the provincial flag, unless of course a New
Democratic administration or a Liberal administration, if ever they become an
administration in the
Ms. Friesen: Under the policy angle of this particular
department, I want to change to look at the salaries that I mentioned in my
introduction.
What I had suggested in my introductory
remarks was that the management and technical salaries in some areas of the
department have decreased and in some areas have increased. I wonder, could the minister give us the
rationale for that?
It
seemed to me that for example, and I am not looking at it entirely‑‑I
believe in the Arts Branch, in the heritage branch, in the Archives, that
managerial and technical salaries have decreased. Is that the case?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, it is my
understanding that the only reason you would see a decrease in salaries as such
is if there was one individual replaced by another individual through a
vacancy, whereby that person would start at a lower level.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would be surprised
if there were that many changes. For
example, if we start‑‑I am in the yellow Estimates book on page 35. Managerial has gone from 58 to 57 and
Professional/Technical from 265 to 264, although there are the same number of
people employed. Again, when you look at
Public Library Services, you have gone from 49 to 40 in the Managerial and 455
to 443 in Technical, and you are still looking at the same number of people.
Go
over to Historic Resources, and you see the same thing. You go to Recreation,
you see the same thing. You go to
Regional Services, however, and you see an increase. You go to Information Services, and you see
an increase. The pattern that I see
there is that Provincial Archives, for example, Managerial has gone from 68 to
66 and Professional/Technical from 947 to 928, again, with the same number of staff. So there is a pattern there at the
professional and technical levels of the department. Could the minister explain what has happened?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that
every staff member was treated the same.
In the instance of Regional Services that was just mentioned, what
happened was, we had the director of Regional Services was away for a year on
educational leave, and we had different people from Regional Services rotating
into her position on an acting basis.
They would have been the regional directors who were not as highly paid
as she was.
She
came back from her year's sabbatical, so therefore, her salary was higher than
those who had been acting in her position.
So that will account for the increase.
Every staff member in the department was treated the same with a 3
percent reduction. In some instances,
people were at the top of their salary scale so you would realize and see a 3.8
percent reduction. If they were still at
the stage where they were getting increments, that might not necessarily be
reflected.
Ms. Friesen: Certainly, the largest increase is in Regional
Services, but we do of course have increases in the deputy minister's salary
and increases in Communication Services at the same level. What are the reasons for that?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I can answer one, while staff is looking for
the other, and that is on the deputy minister's salary. Because the deputy minister is not at the top
of his salary scale, if he had received his merit increment and the regular
settlement, he would have realized a 5.4 percent increase because of his merit
increment. But as a result of the 3
percent decrease in his salary for the 10 days unpaid leave, what we see is a
1.2 percent increase rather than a 5.4 percent increase.
I
think that is the same throughout the department. There was another specific, and I cannot
remember.
Ms. Friesen: Information Resources‑‑I am on
Communication Services on page 47 of my yellow book.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I am informed that there is no special
agreement of any sort. What this might
be is a vacancy that had not been a full year in the previous year, it might
have been a reclassification, it might have been anything that fell within MGEU
standards agreements. There was nothing
special.
Ms. Friesen: Again, as a policy line, could I look at the
discrepancies that seem to be there in the listing of Information Resources?
I
just wanted to look at page 45 of this year's book, which suggests that the
expenditures for '92‑93 in Information Resources, which is the government's
communication group. It says that in '92‑93‑‑and
I know that is last year, '92‑93‑‑Estimates of Expenditure
were $8,955,800. When we look at last
year's Estimates book on page 45, the estimate for that year was 6.3, so is
that the difference between estimates and expenditure, or is there some other
explanation?
I
notice in this year's book you are using the term Estimates of Expenditures,
where I think maybe it means actuals.
There is a different way of formatting it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am informed that
the difference is the reconciliation of accommodation, and that is space which
is charged back from Government Services for accommodation of the department.
Mr.
Deputy Chairperson, it is shown in the main Estimates of Expenditure for the
province on page 26 under Reconciliation Statement, Allocation of funds
from: Government Services $2, 722,500.
Ms. Friesen: So do we then assume that the Estimates of
Expenditure on page 45 of the '93‑94 book, 8.5, should in fact include
another 2 million?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I have it straight
now.
This was a new policy decision of government
this year to charge back to the departments the actual cost of accommodation. I
think that is a fair way of doing things so we actually do know what the costs
of government and government departments are.
* (2300)
So
in last year's Estimates book, the amount of $6,981,000 did not include
accommodation costs. If last year's book
had included accommodation costs, instead of $6,981,000, it would have read
$8,955,000, so that is the cost of accommodation. This year's Estimates reflect a reduction in
the expenditures for Information Resources accordingly.
Ms. Friesen: Can we go back one further year, since the
minister thinks this is a new policy.
The Adjusted Vote in the '92‑93 Estimates‑‑the
Adjusted Vote for '91‑92 was 6.8.
When we go to the year before, the '91‑92 Estimates, and we look
at the Estimates for the year ending '92, that '91‑92, it is 5.5. So again there is a $1‑million
discrepancy at a time when the minister says that policy was not in
existence. So what is happening there?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, that was as a result
of the consolidated of all of the communications functions within one
department of government, and that was back two years ago.
Now, you indicated that there was only $5.5
million in the budget; that would have been before the consolidation of
Communications positions. As a result of
that consolidation, there was over a two‑year period some $2 million in
savings to the taxpayers of
There were major reductions in Communications
staff years throughout government so that would have accounted for the
increase, because some of those positions, when the number was only $5 million‑something,
were allocated to other departments and paid for through other departmental
expenditures.
Ms. Friesen: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in the context again
of policy, when does the minister intend to distribute the Public Libraries
Board review?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I have had the report for a considerable
length of time now, and it is presently in departments throughout government
trying to get a sense of where we need to be going. I think it is going to take a lot of thought
and effort.
Yes, we believe that there needs to be
automation and better ability for communities to access information through
libraries, but there is also the question too of distance education and our
government's focus on how we move in an efficient way into providing distance
education for Manitobans in remote communities.
I think we have to think very carefully and very seriously about tying
those kinds of initiatives together so that we get a place within rural
Manitoba communities that we can access libraries, whether it be in the public
library system or whether it be through possibly a school library if there is
not the ability to have a public library.
I think it is important that we think very carefully before we put any
kind of an enhanced process in place, that we look at all of the factors that
need to determine what needs to happen in our rural Manitoba communities.
We
are going through that process internally right now. The report will be released publicly when we
come to grips with how we believe we are going to be able to move forward. There will be expenditure of money required,
absolutely no question. We are going to
have to look very carefully through the budgetary processes into the future to
see what can be accommodated and how we marry possibly different functions from
different departments together so that we can have the best resource available
to the majority of communities in rural
It
is not at a point where it will be released publicly yet, but we will be
looking towards that, that into the future, once each department has had the
opportunity to provide some input into the best way of enhancing service and
technology throughout our rural Manitoba communities.
Ms. Friesen: Could the minister just track for me the
allocation of the Heritage Federation monies?
There was $700,000 approximately left when the minister changed the‑‑abandoned
or at least dissolved the council and created another one. Where did that $700,000 go, and how much of
it has been expended under the new council and in what proportions in the sense
of, did the new council expend that $700,000 plus this year's grant? What is the accounting system that has gone
on there?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, when the decision was
made in the budgetary process last year to change the method of delivering
heritage grants throughout the community from the Heritage Federation to a new
council, the Heritage Federation had already made the allocations for last
fiscal year. Their total allocations
were around $700,000 that they had provided for grant approvals. We honoured all of the commitments through
last fiscal year that the Heritage Federation had made.
What happened was the resources were flowed
through my department to every heritage organization that had been approved
last year through the Heritage Federation.
The new grants council only took over in this fiscal year. The grants from last year were as a result of
what the Heritage Federation had committed, and because community organizations
had been notified, we felt that we should honour all of the commitments that
the Heritage Federation had made.
Ms. Friesen: There are two other things I would like to
follow up with. One is the reserve fund
that the Heritage Federation had built up and what the fate of that was, where
that sits at the moment. The second
thing is: What is the allocation for
this year for heritage grants?
* (2310)
Mrs. Mitchelson: As a matter of fact, the Heritage Federation
took the province to court indicating that they felt that the surplus money
that was in reserve was their money. The
court ruled, in fact, that it was not their money, but that it was government's
money. Subsequent to that, the Heritage
Federation has appealed that decision.
I
must say that there is probably a substantial amount of money that is going to
legal costs, and that is money that the heritage community will never see as a
result of the legal arguments. But that
is where it stands right now. It is at
the appeal process.
Ms. Friesen: So at the moment the money still remains in
the Heritage Federation's bank account?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes.
Ms. Friesen: And how much money has been allocated for
heritage grants in this fiscal year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, $600,000 for grants
and $71,000 for administration, so a total of $671,000.
Ms. Gray: I have just a couple of general
questions. The minister in her earlier
comments talked about the economic viability of culture and looking at the
needs of Manitobans versus the wants of Manitobans. I would like her to pursue, if she would, a
little bit more about how she sees culture relating to economic viability, and
if she sees Culture, as perhaps of all the departments, not related to economic
viability. If she can maybe just comment
or expand on her thoughts on that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I think that, when we always have to weigh as
a government when we are using taxpayers' dollars to provide funding or support
to any segment of the community, we have to look at the benefits. In some areas of culture there is great
economic viability.
We
look at our cultural industries, and for the number of dollars that we spend in
cultural industries we generate and lever dollars, whether it be from the
National Film Board or from Telefilm‑‑$6 for every dollar that we
spend here in
It
provides economic opportunity and jobs for Manitobans. It allows companies in
So
it is
It
is unfortunate that we had a City Council not too long ago that gave up a
million dollars of economic activity and a boost to
I
believe that jobs are created in the arts in
I
think that it creates a positive image for the city of
Ms. Gray: Could the minister tell us what criteria her
department uses to evaluate how dollars are used for culture? She speaks of
economic viability, and I am assuming that is maybe not exclusively, but in
some ways it is one criterion that can be used.
Can she tell us what other criteria are used to evaluate the use of
dollars for culture? I would think it
would be difficult to evaluate how well our dollars are being used with culture,
because it tends to be a very nebulous thing and it can be long term?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess there are all kinds of things that go
into the evaluation, the criteria and the guidelines for different
programs. We have different programs
that address different needs out in the community, but some of the things that
are looked at, of course, are arts development, community development.
We
look at a balanced budget. We want to
ensure that there is community support, and I think that is one of the major
criteria. The Arts Council is mainly
responsible for funding the majors arts institutions, organizations.
My
department has the responsibility for community development throughout rural
Ultimately, there has to be community support,
because if there is not going to be community support and community
participation, I do not think it is our role to be telling a community what
they should have and what kinds of activities or performances or venues they
should put on in their communities. We have to look at arts development, we
have to look at the community development, audience participation and, of
course, a balanced budget. We want to
ensure that they are able to do some community fundraising, some private
fundraising of some sort.
* (2320)
I
have always said and I say many times that government cannot do it alone. I think when there is community support to
make something happen and it is community driven, that is where we play a role
in providing that support.
Ms. Gray: There was a discussion earlier this evening
about the augmented coat of arms. Could
the minister tell us who the artist was who did the granite, if I can say,
sculpture that is in the
Mrs. Mitchelson: Just off the top of my head, I cannot recall.
I will get that information. I could
provide it tomorrow morning.
Ms. Gray: Who actually designed the coat of arms?
Mrs. Mitchelson: It was the artist that did the rendering as a
result of the chief herald at Rideau Hall, who looked at the history and the
heritage and talked about the settlers and the terrain and all of those things
that have to fit into an augmented coat of arms.
Ms. Gray: I know we are jumping from topic to topic and
I know the minister has probably indicated this in news conferences before but
perhaps she could briefly reiterate for the committee this evening the reason
behind the change from the Heritage Federation in terms of, it is an
organization being allowed to make decisions on approving grants for heritage
projects and the new grants council that she has established.
Mrs. Mitchelson: It goes back a few years now as we were doing
an assessment and an evaluation of the Heritage Federation and the increase in
administrative costs that had been happening.
We were up to, I think we were spending $177,000 on administrative costs
to administer a program that we felt was somewhat excessive.
You
know, as a result of the new structure, we will be spending somewhere around‑‑we
anticipated it will be around $75,000. I
think it will come in at about $71,000, just over $71,000 on
administration. That means there is
$100,000 that could go to community projects, all things being equal, more than
was available when the Heritage Federation was distributing grants.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister
indicated that last year the Heritage Federation group had approved about
$700,000 worth of grants; this year the new grants council has approved some $600,000. The minister refers to $100,000 savings being
made on administrative costs. Could she
tell us where that extra $200,000 is, and will that be used for grants? I get $200,000 when I add $100,000 savings
from administration and the difference between $600,000 and $700,000 from last
year to this year.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have to go back to
the history of the Manitoba Heritage Federation when they were set up, and it
was before our time as government, to distribute grants to the community.
When they were set up, they received a certain
allocation from the government of the day, and I think it was around‑‑I
cannot remember back that far, but I do know that they had a certain grant
allocation, and because they did not spend all of the money that had been
allocated to them in the first year, they developed a surplus. In the second year, they did not spend all of
the money that had been allocated by the government of the day to them, so they
developed a larger surplus. They kept
generating a larger and a larger surplus, and they were not providing the full
amount of grant that was allocated to them back out to the community, so they
developed a large pot and a large surplus.
When we did the Lotteries needs assessment, we
determined that really that money should be going out to the community that had
been allocated to them, and we encouraged them to start to spend some of that
surplus. So although they were able to
allocate, they were only given a grant in the budgetary year of
$712,000.00. That had been their grant
for several years. They allocated
$700,000 using some of their surplus, and they also spent $177,000 on
administration to administer those grants, so they were using some of the
surplus.
What is happening right now with that surplus,
I think, it is going to legal fees to pay the lawyers to fight the government
rather than going to the community that rightly deserves that money. What we have committed as a government is to allocate
that money for heritage opportunities throughout the province, should we ever
get access to it, and I have no way of determining what the appeal process will
tell us.
Ms. Gray: Could the minister tell us, though, even
looking at surpluses over the years, the $100,000 that her department, with
this new structure, is purportedly saving on administrative costs, that
$100,000, will it be made available for groups for grants this year?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all of the umbrella
groups in the granting organizations within my department this year received a
fairly substantial reduction in their allocations. The Multicultural Grants Advisory Council,
the Community Services Council, Community Places Program was eliminated. All of the lottery programs received
substantial decreases, and the Heritage Council could not be treated in
isolation of every other area of my department.
Unfortunately, those were part of the difficult choices. If it was the Heritage Federation or whether
it be the Heritage Grants Council, there would have been a reduction in this
year's budgetary process as a result of overall government reductions.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the $100,000 of
savings, is that reflected anywhere in the budget of this department? Was it spent?
Is it saved? Has it gone back to‑‑on
paper‑‑Treasury, or am I not understanding?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Last year the Heritage Federation committed
$700,000 in grants to the community, and out of the surplus they spent
$177,000. So really the commitment, if
you add it, yes, in addition to the $700,000.
This year we have allocated $600,000 in grants rather than
$700,000. That is a $100,000 reduction.
Okay? Which is somewhat similar across
the board to all of the umbrella organizations, and we have $71,000 on top of
the $600,000. So our total is $671,000
as opposed to $877,000 that the Heritage Federation was spending, only $700,000
on grants, $177,000 on administration.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just out of curiosity,
how much is this court challenge including the appeal costing the government?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we do not know. We do not have the exact costs of that. We have not finished the appeal process, but
I want it clearly stated on the record that it was not government that took the
Heritage Federation to court. It was the
Heritage Federation that took us to court, and I suppose government is always
susceptible to that kind of court challenge, and we would have to pay whatever
the legal cost would be to defend ourselves through the Department of Justice.
Ms. Gray: The minister mentioned the Community Places
Program, and I think somewhere in the budget it talked about $2 million which I
understand were commitments from last year.
Just to clarify if that is the case, and it was a policy decision by
this government that the entire $2 million of commitments for last year should
be honoured. I am asking that question
because there have been other examples of programs that were cut and
commitments were honoured.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, yes, when you have a
community organization that has applied for a capital grant and government has
given the indication that they will provide that grant, I do not think it would
bode very well for government to, in the middle of the process, say we are not
going to finish, you know, finish out that.
What happens is the cash flow is not necessarily in the same year. You might approve a grant one year, and
because the Community Places Program is a program whereby organizations have to
submit their receipts of expenditures before they get paid any money, there
sometimes are several progress payments that happen. As they submit bills, they receive
reimbursement, and traditionally there has been a carry‑over of, well,
since the program was reduced from $10 million several years ago down to $4
million, and the traditional carry‑over into the following year would be
at the $2 million which has been allocated in the budget for those projects
that received approval in last year's budgetary process.
* (2330)
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister also
spoke of the library review and talked about the importance of it and related
it to Distance Education. I am wondering
if she could give us any type of time frame as to when she would like to see
some recommendations or an implementation plan come out of that report. Does she have a time frame for that that she
has shared with her cabinet colleagues?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would have loved to
have seen that time frame last year in completion and have all of our rural
communities served with a library system of some sort. We did, I believe, look
at a policy, and I think the policy is still in place in the Department of
Education.
I
know my colleague the member for Roblin‑Russell (Mr. Derkach), when he
was Minister of Education, we had considerable dialogue about the construction
of new schools in rural
I
think that when the Public Libraries Advisory Board was set into motion, and I
might say it was defunct for 10 years, it was a requirement of legislation, but
under the former administration there was not even a Public Libraries Advisory Board
appointed. So we did appoint one shortly after we started our mandate. They did a fairly extensive process, and I do
know that the recommendations will probably, or I know they do involve, if it
was to be fully implemented, a fair amount of major expenditure.
I
do not think that any government would be responsible if we went into expending
a lot of money given that we have made a commitment to Distance Education,
given we have made a commitment through rural Manitoba to a revitalization of
our rural communities and given we do place a priority on libraries and
resources and having updated technology available so there is easier access by
communities and by people out in rural Manitoba so they can stay in their own
communities, be educated in their own communities, avail themselves of
resources or services whether they be government services, avail themselves of
information that can more readily enable them to stay and live in their own
communities and keep rural Manitoba vital and alive. I think it is important that we take a look
at some sort of an integrated system that is going to benefit most Manitobans
and most communities and serve many purposes.
So
there is not an easy answer. I would
love to be able to give you a time frame which might indicate that things will
be up and running six months from now or 12 months from now. I cannot give you that guarantee. I think it is important that we work
together, we break down the barriers within government departments and try to
find a way to use the resources that are available to best serve Manitobans and
ultimately best serve the taxpayers that we were elected to represent.
Ms. Gray: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I thank the minister for
her comments, and I am sorry that we did not have an opportunity to have a
fuller discussion of the issues in Culture and Heritage, but with the shortness
of time, I know that my colleagues want to speak of the Citizenship area, and I
will give them an opportunity. Thank
you.
Ms. Becky Barrett (
In
the area of Citizenship, I would just like to preface my comments with a statement. I am going to ask basically one general
question in Citizenship. It does not
bear any resemblance to the importance or lack of that I am only asking one
general question, because we just do not have the time. I have been very well briefed in many of
these issues by the staff for which I am greatly appreciative.
My
general question in the area of Citizenship is that in virtually every area the
salary levels are either the same or in many cases have increased, while the
other expenditures or in the case of Immigration Policy and Planning, which has
grants, the grants have in many ways either been reduced or maintained at the
same level.
I
am wondering if the minister can share with me the policy decision that kept
many of their salaries at the same level or increased while decreasing the
grant supports and the other expenditures.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the reason for any
increase in the salary would be the regular answers that I gave earlier on
cultural resources side except that there were several reclassifications within
this division. That was because when
Citizenship was brought into the Department of Culture and became the
Department of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, we got immigrant settlement
services from the Department of Family Services and we got Adult ESL from the
Department of Education. Those all had to be amalgamated into our department
with a new structure obviously along with our new role and mandate for
Citizenship.
So
there would have been reclassifications that were done through the Civil
Service Commission to accommodate that restructuring.
Ms. Barrett: I have a couple of questions, maybe only one,
as far as dealing with the Multiculturalism Secretariat. I am leaving my comments on this whole area to
another venue where I still have‑‑(interjection) Oh, no, no, I have
another area, I still can have unlimited time in Bill 28.
* (2340)
A
question under Expected Results on the Multiculturalism Secretariat, the last
line says: Consultation and advice to
Government departments as required.
As
required by whom? Is this a reactive
consultation process as government departments ask for it? Or does the secretariat proactively talk to
other departments?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, and I am just looking
in my book here for the multitude of accomplishments that have taken place
since we established the Multiculturalism Secretariat. The original purpose for setting up a
secretariat within government I think came from the task force report on multiculturalism.
It
was a recommendation that was done by Neil McDonald before we became
government. There was a study that was
ongoing and the results of that study did recommend that‑‑at the
time we came to government there was only, I guess, one position within
government that dealt with multiculturalism and that was a multiculturalism co‑ordinator
that had responsibility to me, as the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Recreation at the time.
The
report, and through consultation with the community and also with MIC meetings
that I held initially at that time, there was concern that internal to
government there were not enough resources in place to deal with the many and
varied issues regarding multiculturalism.
The
recommendation came that a secretariat be set up within government so that we
could deal with all government departments and ensure that programming that was
being put into place was sensitive to our multicultural society.
Therefore we set up and opened the
secretariat. As a result of that, there
has been extensive consultation within government. We have an internal working group chaired by
the secretariat that meets on a regular basis, I believe on a monthly basis,
with representatives of many departments of government that deal with many
issues.
As
a result of some of the discussions and the interdepartmental good working
relationship, we have several initiatives underway, and some have been with the
Department of Labour. One where‑‑it
is an Employments Standards initiative where community members are trained and
become a volunteer community liaison, where they are trained in information on
the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers and those kinds of
relationships.
I know
that I have been out to visit with the Filipino community and seen the Filipino
representative do an excellent job of working with her community to ensure that
members of the Filipino community do understand the rights and responsibilities
of both the employee and the employer so that they can adapt in a more positive
way to the working world here in Manitoba.
Also, through this process, there are
brochures that are translated into the heritage language for that
community. The communities to date that
have had a positive impact through this initiative are the Filipino, as I
indicated, the Vietnamese community, the aboriginal community and the Polish
community. I understand that the next
community that is on the list is the Laotian community.
So
that has been a very positive experience, and all of those that have been
trained have had the opportunity to meet with‑‑individually they
are extremely excited that they have a positive contribution to make to their
communities, and they are working with great determination to ensure that
members of their respective communities do understand what their rights are,
what their responsibilities are and what the employee/employer relationship can
and should be.
Other things that the secretariat has done is
work within government, you know, when we had the Multicultural Education
Policy announced by the Minister of Education back‑‑it was
Multicultural Week in 1992. The
Multicultural Secretariat was involved in ensuring that the draft was
reflective of what the community was saying needed to happen. We have worked very closely.
Of
course, although the Multiculturalism Secretariat falls under my responsibility
as minister of Multiculturalism, I have the Citizenship branch within my
department. There has been a very good
working relationship between the secretariat and the Citizenship Division, and,
as a result of that, we have been able to develop a respectful workplace
initiative within the Citizenship branch, which has been shared in my
department and is going to be shared right throughout the civil service.
We
have been able to see very positive responses from the staff in the Department
of Culture, and I think it is a module that can be shared and used. As a matter of fact, the Civil Service
Commission is extremely excited about the prospect of being able to use what we
have seen as a very positive thing within our department‑‑come to
recognize and understand that we are different.
We do come from different backgrounds, and yet we have something very
positive to contribute to the work environment and to the community environment
and, obviously, to the government through this initiative.
I
have talked about the Citizenship Division, and you know of all of the positive
things that are going on there. We do
have an antiracism co‑ordinator and an antiracism outreach officer also
that have worked directly within government.
I guess the antiracism co‑ordinator was the person that has worked
very closely throughout the department in establishing the respectful workplace
policy that we have been able to work with.
The antiracism outreach officer, of course, works with the community to
ensure that the programs that are being put in place and that the communities
are working on are sensitive to the issue of ensuring racial harmony and
combatting racism.
The
secretariat has worked not only internally to government, and I think we talked
about a couple of the initiatives that have been very positive, but also have
worked with the community at large to listen to the concerns and to ensure that
the communities do have access to government, do know what government programs
are available. I want to tell you that
there is a great appreciation among many communities out there that the
secretariat has provided a very valuable service in ensuring that our programs
are sensitive.
* (2350)
I
think that we have‑‑(interjection) I am sensing a little bit of
disruption, and I would defer to the critic for the official opposition to
maybe ask a specific question so I could give a specific answer.
(Mr. Jack Penner, Acting Deputy
Chairperson, in the Chair)
Ms. Barrett: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, I thought I had
asked a specific question. Obviously, I
did not make it clear enough, but in the interests of time, since we have just
a few minutes left, I will at this point defer to the critic for the second
opposition party.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, unfortunately,
with only, well, less than 20 minutes left before the 240 hours wind down, it
limits us in terms of the number of questions that we could be asking in what I
believe is a department that is very important in the sense that it has such an
impact on so many different individuals.
What the government has been doing in dealing
with the whole issue of multiculturalism has been somewhat disappointing. The member for
I
too am looking forward to putting a few words on the record with respect to the
Manitoba Intercultural bill. There are
no doubt a number of different issues.
You know, when you quickly glance through the Main Estimates dealing
with, in particular, the Immigrant Credentials, the Citizenship Support
Services settlement, Adult Language Training, all of these issues are very
important issues that I believe that the government does not necessarily have
its priorities in order.
I
would look at one of them, for example, ESL.
The minister, at least I believe, knows full well the importance of
English as a Second Language, but when it comes to the settlement and the Adult
Language Training program in fact we do see somewhat of a cut. In other areas, we do see some
increases. I think the minister does
have a number of misplaced priorities in dealing with issues affecting
multiculturalism.
I
guess I am somewhat concerned about if I leave too much of a general statement
that the minister will consume the rest of the 15 minutes and I might not get
another opportunity to ask a question, but generally speaking you have
Immigrant Credentials, a very serious issue.
The minister talked about establishing a data bank and ESL, English as a
Second Language.
I
would ask the minister specifically on those two areas what it is that she has
done and, again, if she could be as brief as possible on it.
I
listened very closely in terms of the minister's response to the
Multiculturalism Secretariat and would ask the minister if in fact the
department would have been able to do what it talked about doing even had the
Multiculturalism Secretariat not existed.
The only thing I heard that occurs that could not have occurred prior
was the monthly meeting that occurs and I do not see too much that has really
come out of that.
Mrs. Mitchelson: I guess I did not give quite a full enough
answer just a few moments ago, because I think I should have stated then much
more clearly some of the things that the Multiculturalism Secretariat has done.
Indeed, one of the first jobs that they
undertook, and I may have neglected to mention that there was just so much, and
I probably could have gone on and taken up the rest of the time in the
Estimates process talking about what the secretariat has done. The first things they did was bring together
the Department of Culture and the Multicultural Grants Council and facilitate a
process whereby, because the community had asked for it, the multicultural
community, the ethnocultural communities did not want to be, if you can call
it, ghettoized into receiving their arts grant support from the Multicultural
Grants Council.
They wanted to ensure that those venues of
real artistic merit within many of our communities‑‑and I know the
member for Inkster has visited many of the functions in communities where we
see professional, semiprofessional art being performed‑‑and they
did not want their only sources of revenue to be from multicultural grants,
because they wanted to be included in the mainstream arts and be able to access
funding through the mainstream arts programs that were available. The secretariat played a major role in
facilitating that process, and we were able to restructure our Arts Branch and
fund multicultural arts that were more professional out of the Arts Branch,
rather than having them only be able to go to the Multicultural Grants Council
for funding. So that was one of the
things that they facilitated.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson in the Chair)
I
talked about the Employment Standards Branch initiative, and that would not
have happened without the Multicultural Secretariat liaising with the
Department of Labour. That would not
have happened. It was a joint
partnership between the secretariat and the Department of Labour, but it was
the secretariat that drove the process to ensure that that kind of thing
happened, because it was something that the community wanted and it was a
program that we were able to put in place within government to try to facilitate
that.
As
I indicated, we had to ensure that the multicultural education policy reflected
what the community was telling us they wanted to see when it came to the
multicultural legislation, our multicultural act that we brought in. There are a lot of things that the community
told us. One of them was the importance
of heritage language and that as a result of that initiative being expressed
through the Multiculturalism Secretariat and brought to government and those
kind of meetings facilitated with the Premier (Mr. Filmon) and myself as
minister and different communities, we were able to determine that that was
something that, yes, we as a government wanted to place as a high priority, and
it was a high priority of the community
All
of those things. I will not go on
because I know there are more. I just
wanted to clarify that it was not only the meetings but it is when different
departments sit down around the table and have the opportunity to dialogue and
when the secretariat hears from the community their specific need and we can
partner with the department to make something new happen to benefit the
community, I think that that is very positive.
On
the issue of ESL, Adult ESL, Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I take some offence from the
Liberal critic indicating that we have misplaced priorities, because Adult ESL
was the one grant line within my department that did not receive a
reduction. That is because this
government places a high priority on ensuring that people have the opportunity
to learn the English language and easier adapt to a new life in their new home
community. So I take great exception to
saying that maintaining the grant funding for ESL is a misplaced priority. I believe that is an extremely high priority,
and there was no reduction in this year's budget for Adult ESL.
I
know that I have met both opposition critics at events and activities within
the community where we have graduates from the Adult ESL program. The ones that especially hold a soft spot in
my heart I think are the women who are at home with their families and are
completely isolated from our Manitoba community, because usually when we have a
new immigrant family coming over, it is the man that works in the family, and
the wife is at home raising the children and is somewhat isolated.
* (0000)
I
cannot believe the sense of pride that these women feel when they accomplish
and graduate from an ESL program, and it gives them a better
understanding. They can stand up in front
of their class and make a short speech.
I guess it just really warms my heart to think that we can provide that
kind of service. I think that it is a
very valuable service. So I tend to
disagree with the Liberal critic when he says that we have misplaced
priorities, because Adult ESL has to be our No. 1 priority in the Citizenship
Division.
Now
second to that, and I hate to even say that ESL is No. 1 over Immigrant
Credentials, because we really have placed a focus on credentialization and
trying to accommodate and ensure that people that come to Manitoba with skills
are able to work utilizing those skills here in our province.
There are lots of barriers that have to be
overcome, and there are professional organizations out there that are not as
receptive as others might be. We seem to
be having some very positive success in certain areas like in the engineering
profession, in the accounting profession.
We are having some positive results as a direct result of the work that
we have done on the credentials side of things.
We have certain organizations that work very closely with us.
We
have assisted 139 clients over the last year in accreditation and through an
assessment and accreditation process, and we are presently involved in a co‑operative
project with
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: (b)(1) Salaries.
Ms. Barrett: I have one brief question. I hesitate to say it, but it goes back to the
coat of arms. Did the provincial
government request the augmented coat of arms or was the augmented coat of arms‑‑did
it come from the government or the Queen or through the Governor‑General? Who initiated the whole process?
Mrs. Mitchelson: I cannot answer that question
specifically. I have to indicate to you
that I am the minister responsible for the coat of arms and the emblems, the
tartan‑‑
An Honourable Member: The tree and all the rest of it.
Mrs. Mitchelson: Yes, that includes the tree.
I
cannot remember exactly the name of the act at this late, late time. I do know that the whole process was dealt
with through Executive Council, and because the legislation falls under my
jurisdiction, it would be my responsibility to make the amendment to the
act. It was not an initiation of mine. All I can say is that I cannot give you that
information. I had to make the amendment
to the act to facilitate the augmented coat of arms, but it was not my
initiative.
Ms. Barrett: A brief request. Could the minister undertake to find out the
information as to where the request came from, whether it was from a cabinet
colleague of yours or if it came from the Herald or the Queen's representative?
Mrs. Mitchelson: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I can undertake to
attempt to get that information.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: 1.(b)(1) Salaries $319,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $74,000‑‑pass.
1.(c) Financial and Administrative Services
(1) Salaries $732,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $111,700‑‑pass.
(d)
Human Resource Service (1) Salaries $245,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $23,800‑‑pass.
(e)
2.
Culture, Heritage and Recreation Programs:
Provides for services to organizations throughout
2.(a) Executive Administration (1) Salaries
$233,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $62,600‑‑pass.
(b)
Arts Branch (1) Salaries $444,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$124,600‑‑pass.
(c)
Public Library Services (1) Salaries $646,700‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $484,200‑‑pass.
(d)
Historic Resources (1) Salaries $1,010,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $309,000‑‑pass.
(e)
Recreation (1) Salaries $269,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$161,700‑‑pass.
(f)
Regional Services (1) Salaries $964,200‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $330,400‑‑pass.
Resolution 14.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $5,040,400 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship, Culture,
Heritage and Recreation Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of
March, 1994.
3.
Information Resources: Delivers information
services to the public and government which reflect
(a)
Communication Services (1) Salaries $878,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $139,200‑‑pass.
(b)
Advertising Services (1) Salaries $1,010,100‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $270,800‑‑pass; (3) Public Sector Advertising
$2,384,100‑‑pass; (4) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriations $(2,733,500)‑‑pass.
(c)
Information Services (1) Salaries $561,900‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $174,700‑‑pass.
(d)
Queen's Printer (1) Salaries $202,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$721,700‑‑pass; (3) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriations $(260,300)‑‑pass.
(e)
Translation Services (1) Salaries $898,300‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $429,000‑‑pass.
(f)
Provincial Archives (1) Salaries $1,338,600‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $1,258,000‑‑pass; (3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
$(28,800)‑‑pass.
(g)
Legislative Library (1) Salaries $695,800‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $654,000‑‑pass.
* (0010)
Resolution 14.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $8,594,100 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Information Resources, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please.
I am interrupting the proceedings of this section of the Committee of
Supply because the total time allowed for Estimates consideration has now
expired. Our Rule 64.1(1) provides in
part that not more than 240 hours shall be allowed for the consideration in the
Committee of the Whole of the Ways and Means and Supply resolutions respecting
all types of Estimates and of relevant Supply bills.
Our
Rule 64.1(3) provides that where the time limit has expired the Chairperson
shall forthwith put all remaining questions necessary to the disposal of the
matters and such questions should not be subject to debate, amendment or
adjournment.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Resolution 14.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,786,400 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Citizenship, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 14.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $357,800 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Multiculturalism, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 14.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $35,041,600 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Lotteries Funded Programs, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 14.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,834,000 for Culture, Heritage and Citizenship,
Administration and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March,
1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Department of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship.
INDUSTRY,
TRADE AND TOURISM
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): We will now move on to the Department of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Resolution 10.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $14,551,000 for Industry, Trade and Tourism, Strategic
Initiatives, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution
10.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,766,600 for Industry, Trade and Tourism,
Economic Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 10.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $661,000 for Industry, Trade and Tourism, Expenditures
Related to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 10.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $3,124,300 for Industry, Trade and Tourism, Administration
and Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jerry Storie (Flin
Flon): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, you
are going through these resolutions very quickly, and it is difficult to hear
what these resolutions actually are, but I want it known that had the Estimates
time not expired, I would have been asking questions about these very important
sections of the department.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
Point of
Order
Mr. Jack Penner
(Emerson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I appreciate greatly
what the member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) has just said. But let me remind the honourable member for
Flin Flon that there was adequate time, had they chosen to not rag the puck on
a number of the other departments, and had they not chosen to waste a huge
amount of time. Then I would suggest to
the honourable member for Flin Flon that they next time consider the proper
allocations of time for these committees.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Shall the resolution pass? Pass.
COMMUNITY
SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Resolution 33.1: RESOLVED that there be
granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $4,925,600 for Community Support
Programs for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
LEGISLATIVE
ASSEMBLY
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Resolution S: RESOLVED that there be granted
to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $2,440,300 for the Legislative Assembly for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution S:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$1,310,500 for the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year ending the 31st day
of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution S:
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding
$2,580,000 for the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year ending the 31st day
of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 1.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $3,551,400 for the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 1.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,792,800 for the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 1.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $798,500 for the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 1.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $386,200 for the Legislative Assembly for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
CANADA–MANITOBA
ENABLING VOTE
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Resolution 26.1: RESOLVED that there be
granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $5,514,200 for Canada‑Manitoba
Enabling Vote for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
ALLOWANCE FOR LOSSES AND EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY CROWN CORPORATI ONS
AND OTHER PROVINCIAL ENTITIES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Resolution 35.1: RESOLVED that there be
granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $620,000 for Allowances for Losses
and Expenditures Incurred by Crown Corporations and Other Provincial Entities
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
ALLOWANCE
FOR SALARY ACCRUALS
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Resolution 37.1: RESOLVED that there be
granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $3,600,000 for the Allowance for
Salary Accruals for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
EMERGENCY
EXPENDITURES
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Resolution 18.1: RESOLVED that there be
granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $10,000,000 for Emergency
Expenditures for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
The
hour being 12:17 a.m. and Estimates complete, committee rise.
* (2000)
JUSTICE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This section of the Committee of Supply is
dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Justice. We are on item 2.(a) page 105.
Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber?
Ms. Becky Barrett (
I
would question first, under which line, if we were going line by line, would
Maintenance Enforcement come. Would it
be Court Services?
Hon. James McCrae (Minister
of Justice and Attorney General): Court Services, line 5.(a).
Ms. Barrett: That is the line I had. Two basic questions, and maybe I will just
make the general comment and state the questions.
We have
talked in the House, and there has been public information about the problems
facing Maintenance Enforcement due virtually entirely, as far as I can tell, to
the fact that there really are not. I am
not laying blame on any particular department or the minister, but there are
not really enough resources, human or technical, to deal with the issues and
the caseloads that face Maintenance Enforcement.
I
know that there are a couple of areas that are being looked at to try and
improve the situation, and one is computerization. I would like to ask the
minister if he could bring us up to date on what is happening with the
possibilities or the plans for computerization.
The
second is: Are there any plans underway
to deal with staffing in the division, either in the short term while
computerization is underway or in the long term?
Mr. McCrae: Partly in response to pressure on this
division, because of the nature of the '90s and the fact that more and more of
the kinds of services offered by Maintenance Enforcement, our Maintenance
Enforcement Program, beginning in February of 1992, embarked upon a review of
the Maintenance Enforcement Program, and there was a working committee struck
to facilitate the process. This is back
over a year ago now.
It
was chaired by Irene Young and it included Maintenance Enforcement staff, a
number of members of the staff. What
their objectives were were to review all the staff duties and office procedures
and workloads to determine what changes could be made to reduce or redistribute
the workload, to review the policies and procedures of the program with a view
to improving public service, to review the additional systems needs of the
program, for example, automation of the enforcement elements of the program to
maximize the use of automation and reduce the labour intensive clerical
functions performed manually, to review and ensure the adequacy of the space
requirements of the program, and to review the locator function performed by
sheriff's officers on behalf of the Maintenance Enforcement Program.
That was back in February, so it was almost as
if we knew the honourable member was going to raise this question today,
because really a lot of work has been done since February of 1992. We are presently in the process of training
three new staff people in the program to help us keep up with the demand on the
program. It is really a very good
program when you look at how we were able to manage without the program. We are worlds apart in the sense of assisting
people, mostly women, in having their maintenance awards enforced and assisting
them without having to go through a whole lot of trouble themselves to obtain
the maintenance awards, monthly payments that are properly owing to them under
court orders.
The
honourable member would be very well aware of the kinds of people sometimes we
have to deal with. I mean, there are
many, many people against whom orders are issued who make their payments and
even if we did not have a program there might never be a problem, but there are
also those who are a little reluctant to live up to their responsibilities and
this program is in place to assist. We
have really made some vast improvements over the last year in the Maintenance
Enforcement Program. It was time after‑‑it
had been going about 10 years at that time, so that we certainly understood the
shortcomings in the program and so very comprehensive work has been done. The Ombudsman has been involved in overseeing
the work that we have been doing, and improvements have been made.
It
is not to say, we are not going to continue to have people who have difficulty
obtaining their maintenance because unfortunately we are dealing with people
who sometimes want to get out of fulfilling their responsibilities, avoid the
authorities, avoid the program, and there is that constant challenge. But even so, we, as I said before, pioneered
this program in Manitoba, and it is still the program to which other
jurisdictions look to assist them in either setting up their own or improving
their own.
Ms. Barrett: The minister said that there were three new
staff being trained, yet when I look at the Estimates figures for staff, there
is a reduction in Court Services.
Mr. McCrae: Well, that is a big branch, a very big
branch. We have about 500‑‑
Ms. Barrett: You are right.
Are these‑‑
Mr. McCrae: Sorry, Madam Chairperson, I am just inviting
the honourable member to look at page 73 of the information provided. However, you look at all these numbers on
this page, there are three more people working for Maintenance Enforcement than
there were before.
Ms. Barrett: The minister is right. This is the whole thing, and Maintenance
Enforcement obviously is not those complete numbers, although, it probably
would not be too many.
These three new staff, are they permanent
staff that have been hired by Maintenance Enforcement? If we were to pull that line out of the
Estimates, we would see three new staff years, permanent?
* (2010)
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the three positions for
this program are permanent. People tend
to come and go sometimes. You will have someone in a term position perhaps or a
staff development type of position.
Ultimately, what we have is three permanent positions added to the
Maintenance Enforcement Program, so they will be staffed with people.
Ms. Barrett: Madam Chairperson, the other area that I was
quite concerned with in this whole dealing with Maintenance Enforcement is the
fact that this program still is, as far as I understand, quite driven by hard
copy and paper and people having to physically go look at things. It is not yet very computerized compared to
what the potentials are. I am wondering
if the minister can give me an update on what is happening in the technological
area.
Mr. McCrae: We are indeed moving toward greater and
greater automation of this branch of the department. It is not unlike, in some ways, the land
titles system, which, when I got here five years ago, we began‑‑
An Honourable Member: What a mess.
Mr. McCrae: Well, it was a mess in 1988. It is not anymore.
When we got here, there was a very big job to
do in terms of transferring from paper title to automated title. The job still is not done. This is five years later and we are moving
along.
The
same way with this program. I do not know
when it will be totally automated, but certainly we are moving in that
direction. With the addition of three
new staff, if there is any time apart from serving the public, that time would
be used to make that transfer from the paper, the honourable member refers to,
to automated record keeping for this program.
Ms. Barrett: Is there a program of computerization or of
automation underway in Maintenance Enforcement?
Are there monies attached to adding automated phones, computers and
staff training?
Mr. McCrae: With the help of the federal government, yes,
that is the direction we are going in.
We have I think it is $50,000 this year that is being used to fund a
person to do that work. It is something that is ongoing but it is something
that is dedicated to the task of automation.
Ms. Barrett: So that $50,000 is money that has been given
to the Maintenance Enforcement Program by the federal government. Is there any additional money over and above
what has normally been spent, not counting the three extra staff years, but any
additional money from the budget of Maintenance Enforcement under the
Department of Justice that has been tied to computerization technological
advances?
Mr. McCrae: In
Ms. Barrett: So the minister is saying that there is no
additional Manitoba Justice financial resources attached to tech change than
the $50,000 that is coming from the federal government?
Mr. McCrae: Last year, Madam Chairperson, we were able to
put $20,000 to the capital cost of automation.
This year we have staffed up by three more.
Ms. Barrett: Can the minister give me an estimated timetable
of when the technical‑‑well, you are never completely up to date‑‑but
the proposed technological changes will be completed?
Mr. McCrae: After the experience of the Land Titles Office,
I am pleased to be able to tell the honourable member that within a year we
hope to have that job complete.
Ms. Barrett: Let us step ahead a year then.
An Honourable Member: Until after the next election?
Ms. Barrett: That is up to you to determine. We will just reverse the positions. Let us look ahead a year and whoever is
Minister of Justice, under whatever government it might be, because there could
be several changes in the offing‑‑
An Honourable Member: That is highly hypothetical.
Ms. Barrett: It is very hypothetical, but I do not think
the Chair will rule me out of order. I
hope not in this case. Let us say it is
a year from now and in the Estimates process the critic asks the minister about
the technological change. The minister
says it is completed. We are satisfied
that the first step has been completed.
What is it going to look like?
What kinds of things will be there that are not there now?
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, it is always dangerous to
be hypothetical, but I am assuming the information that we are working with now
will be the same information only more easily accessed, more quickly accessed
to provide a better, swifter service to the people who require it and who we
serve. That is what I expect a year from
now.
Ms. Barrett: That is what I am assuming will happen as
well.
What I am trying to get at is: What will the changes be in a technical
manner that will facilitate, will make that service delivery better? Are you looking at additional computers? Are you looking at additional telephone
capabilities? What are you looking at?
* (2020)
Mr. McCrae: After the time has passed and we have
completed the technical aspects of our automation program, people who will have
been busying themselves as doing clerical functions and feeding information
into machines and so on, those functions will no longer have to be carried out
because we will have completed that process.
Then we will have more people available to devote their time to serving
people. In that way, we can reduce the
caseloads on individual officers that work for the program, we can improve
service even further to our clients.
That is the expectation and the hope.
Ms. Barrett: I have another question that is not in this
same kind of general category. I am wondering
if the minister can give us figures for '92‑93 revenues returned to the
province from the Maintenance Enforcement Program.
Mr. McCrae: I just happen to have at my fingertips, Madam
Chairperson, some figures showing the growth of this program in terms of the
number of dollars processed by the program, dollars brought in. It goes right back to 1980, when the program
started. In that year, there was $4.6
million processed through; then I will jump ahead to 1984, $9.5 million; then
jumping ahead to 1988, $18.7 million, and 1992‑‑we do not seem to
have figures that take us right up to today‑‑but for 1992, $28.7
million.
I
am asking Ms. Young for some information about the number of people who have
worked for the program. It is amazing
the growth in the program and the efficiency of the program when you compare
these numbers. I have seen them before.
In
1992, we had 21 employees in this branch here in
Ms. Barrett: I appreciate those figures but it is not
exactly what I was trying to ascertain so I will try and be more specific. According to the annual report for 1990‑91,
and I may have these figures and do not know about it in the latest annual
report, in '90‑91 fiscal year the cost of Maintenance Enforcement was
$759,000, while the revenue recovered and returned to the Minister of Finance
to offset social assistance programs was more than $1.2 million. Those are the figures I am looking for for
the next year, '91‑92. Actually I
would like '92‑93, if it is possible.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, the number that the
honourable member is looking for for 1992 is $1.6 million compared with the
$1.2 million in 1990. It was $1.2
million returned to the province in 1990.
In 1992, $1.6 million.
Ms. Barrett: I will conclude on this very important area,
although I could, as in all the other areas, ask a lot more questions and make
some more comments.
I
do think that when we look at the needs of the women and children that this
division tries to respond to, and responds very efficiently and effectively by
and large with very antiquated systems that need to be updated, and I would
hope that in a year from now they have been majorly updated. But it does seem to me that one could make
the argument that the Maintenance Enforcement Program with limited resources,
human and technical, is a money maker for the Province of Manitoba, because for
a cost of well under a million dollars‑‑and I am not sure what the
expenses are going to be for this particular program for '93‑94 or what
they were for '91‑92‑‑this program returned to the government
almost twice as much money as the cost of the program to deal with.
While I know it is not a completely parallel
or in/out kind of process, it does seem to me that the needs of the people who
are serviced by Maintenance Enforcement Division and also the problems that the
staff, I would suggest, in this division have to deal with, because they are
dealing with enormous numbers of phone calls every day and real difficulty in
getting information and legislative problems, and they are dealing with people
who are at the end of their rope.
They are not dealing with people who are
asking for a piece of general information.
These are women who have been told by the courts that they have rights
to a certain amount of support and for reasons, virtually none of which are
their own fault, they are not getting it and they come to Maintenance
Enforcement for this assistance. As I
said earlier, Maintenance Enforcement does an excellent job with very limited
and inadequate resources.
I
just think that it is important that the government put in a little bit more, I
think, of the resources that the program provides into Maintenance Enforcement
so that the women of the province can have the kind of service to which they
are entitled and the kind of service that the people who work in this division
want to be able to give and are often unable to give because they have a huge
caseload in comparison to other provinces.
They have virtually no technology in comparison to other provinces.
I
think the government should look at increasing the support to this division
substantially, because it certainly provides an essential service and it brings
in a fair bit of money to the province of Manitoba, much of which that
additional revenue should be targeted to supporting Maintenance Enforcement.
With that, Madam Chairperson, I am prepared to
pass the rest of the department.
Mr. McCrae: Madam Chairperson, I just do not want to leave
the honourable member with the wrong impression. I do not want to come back here a year from
now and tell her, you know, I have been able to get from my colleagues another
$100,000 to spend on this because if I have not figured out how I am going to
spend it, there is not much point spending it and coming in and raving about
how great it was we were able to spend all this money when we really did not
know what we were doing.
The
honourable member referred to antiquated equipment. We have the up‑to‑date latest
kind of equipment that is available. In 1990‑91, we spent $100,000 on
hardware and software and in 1991‑92 another $20,000. So it is a matter of enhancing the system
that we have. We do not have an
antiquated system. We just need to get
all of the attachments working and we will have state of the art. So I just did not want to leave the
honourable member with the opinion that we had creaky old stuff that is not
doing a good enough job. We have the
latest. It just needs to be properly
enhanced.
Madam Chairperson: 2.(a) Public Prosecutions (1) Salaries
$5,187,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,056,900‑‑pass;
(3) Witness Programs $582,000‑‑pass.
2.(b)
Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (1) Salaries $341,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $848,100‑‑pass.
2.(c) Provincial Policing $48,373,700‑‑pass.
2.(d) Law Enforcement Administration (1)
Salaries $461,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $138,700‑‑pass;
(3) Grants $210,000‑‑pass.
2.(e) Victim Assistance (1) Salaries $425,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $684,200‑‑pass; (3) Grants $639,900‑‑pass.
2.(f) Criminal Injuries Compensation
$2,494,800‑‑pass.
Resolution 4.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $61,444,500 for Justice, Public Prosecutions, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
3.
Justice (a) Administration and Special Programs (1) Salaries $111,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $88,500‑‑pass.
3.(b) Civil Legal Services (1) Salaries
$1,594,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $178,000‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($1,772,400)‑‑pass.
3.(c) Legislative Counsel (1) Salaries
$1,193,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $454,600‑‑pass.
3.(d)
* (2030)
3.(e) Family Law (1) Salaries $373,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $86,300‑‑pass.
3.(f) Constitutional Law (1) Salaries $502,200‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $122,900‑‑pass.
Resolution 4.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $3,352,200 for Justice, Justice, for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1994.
4.
Corrections (a) Administration (1) Salaries $630,700‑‑pass; (2)
Other Expenditures $157,600‑‑pass.
4.(b) Adult Corrections (1) Salaries
$24,842,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $5,398,500‑‑pass;
(3) External Agencies and Halfway Houses $445,800‑‑pass; (4)
Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($170,700)‑‑pass.
4.(c) Correctional Youth Centres (1) Salaries
$8,226,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,077,700‑‑pass.
4.(d) Community Corrections (1) Salaries
$6,371,500‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,398,400‑‑pass;
(3) Program Development $1,378,000‑‑(pass).
Resolution 4.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $49,756,300 for Justice, Corrections, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
5.
Courts (a) Court Services (1) Salaries $2,319,300‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $970,800‑‑pass.
5.(b)
5.(c) Regional Courts (1) Salaries $3,469,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $2,027,00‑‑pass.
5.(d) Judicial Services (1) Salaries
$6,823,000‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $612,900‑‑pass.
Resolution 4.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $24,311,700 for Justice, Courts, for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1994.
6.
Protection of Individual and Property Rights (a)
6.(b) Legal Aid
6.(c) Public Trustee (1) Salaries $2,477,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $864,600‑‑pass.
6.(d) Land Titles Offices (1) Salaries
$5,122,300‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $1,466,400‑‑pass;
(3) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations ($90,000)‑‑pass.
6.(e) Personal Property Registry (1) Salaries
$593,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $529,500‑‑pass.
Resolution 4.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $24,772,600 for Justice, Protection of Individual and
Property Rights for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
At
this time, I would request that the minister's staff please leave the Chamber.
Item 1.(a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 4.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $4,019,900 for Justice, Administration and Finance for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
This concludes the Estimates for the Department
of Justice.
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order? This section of the Committee of
Supply will be dealing with the Estimates for the Department of Natural Resources.
Does the minister wish to make an opening
statement?
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Natural Resources): No,
Madam Chair, I am not going to abuse the time of the committee by any lengthy
opening statement. I appreciate that
there are a number of questions that honourable members have, but allow me to
nonetheless indicate, through you, to the committee that the Department of
Natural Resources remains one of the most interesting and exciting departments
of government to be produced, to be minister of.
I
say this with a great deal of sincerity.
I have certainly not been oblivious to some of the pressures and strains
that have been put on the staff within the Department of Natural Resources, as
indeed throughout government service, perhaps more specifically in the
Department of Natural Resources because, for us, some of the difficult
budgetary questions were made two years ago, as the honourable member for The
Pas (Mr. Lathlin) is aware of and the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux).
I
am not going to suggest that that has not made it more difficult for the
department staff to carry out their mandate, but I am led to believe that as
events have unfolded across the province and across this land of ours, there is
a realization that it is not a unique situation to Manitoba, some of the
budgetary problems that we face, but that they are indeed nonpolitical of
nature. They affect New Democratic Party
governments in
* (2040)
I
want to simply put on the record that I am extremely proud to serve with a
group of people that make up the Department of Natural Resources. They have, in my opinion, been able to, in
the main, carry out the mandate this department has had over these many years,
some 60 years, I might remind honourable members of the committee, that in a
number of areas, we have managed to provide innovative programming initiatives
that belie the budgetary state of the department.
I
remind honourable members that in essence we are operating with some $15
million to $20 million less than what the department had some three, four short
years ago. That is a significant
reduction. It is a reduction that I
defend. It was not easy. I would have liked to have had those $20
million‑plus inflation dollars today rather than not have them, but I
defend that because I believe in the priorities of this government. I believe in the priorities established for
the people of
Madam Chairperson, the actions of this House,
of this Chamber, the actions of the media that reports on our daily activities
support that. How many times am I asked
as Minister of Natural Resources about why I am not doing a better job in a
particular wildlife area or why I am not doing a particular better job in some
of my parks?
I
get commentary about my parks if it is of a controversial environmental
question, but I do not get too many urgings from honourable members opposite
about why I do not have an extra $500,000 to spruce up an aging infrastructure
in our parks system. I do not get a
great deal of support for the kind of ongoing attention that we have to pay in
this province to maintain, to ensure that our defences are up in our Water
Resources department for the massive investment that we have in flood
protection works. It takes a flood like
we have just experienced in the
So,
Madam Chairperson, I look forward to the brief discussion of the Estimates that
we will have. I simply want to indicate
to honourable members that I am looking forward as well to what I am sure will
be an extensive examination of our parks management that will take place in the
debates and in the public presentations with respect to Bill 31, the new
Parkland Act that is in front of this House for consideration.
I
am pleased and delighted with the acceptance of our fisheries enhancement fund
that we have created by the establishment of Manitoba's first fish stand, which
I am satisfied, although it is a tax impost, is being received with a
considerable amount of enthusiasm by sports anglers throughout the province,
particularly so and I believe will continue to be so if we as government, and I
speak not just of myself but of succeeding ministers that will follow me, if we
are held accountable and in fact can demonstrate to the sports angler
community, actual fisheries enhancement programs in the field. We are
attempting to do that, and I know that there have been a number of projects
already supported by this fund.
I
take considerable pride that my government has supported the initiative taken
by the department to set aside the largest single piece of real estate in the
history of this province where no development will take place, no logging will
take place, no hydro development will take place, no mining will take place, as
a candidate for the Endangered Spaces Program and, hopefully, as a future
second national park in the province of Manitoba, an exciting park, Madam
Chairperson, that will make a very solid commitment by this province, by this
government, to the Endangered Spaces Program.
I
remind honourable members that this commitment of land is somewhat larger by
several hundreds of thousands of acres than the land recently set aside by the
I
am pleased and would be pleased to discuss with honourable members of the
committee some of the other initiatives that are being considered by the
department. Certainly, we hope to
continue our efforts in maintaining a tighter vigilance on the illegal taking
of game. It is something that is of
concern to all Manitobans when that happens.
Through some beefed‑up efforts and resources in the Natural
Resources Officer's department with respect to enforcement, that in fact is
being done. A special squad nicknamed by
the media as the SWAT team is working and working well and I invite honourable
members opposite.
There are so many things in the department
that I could comment on, but time simply does not permit, although it is a
disservice to this department that we do not allocate the sufficient time to
make these comments. The transferring of
the land shop, the Crown lands administration to the town of
We
continue to have some pretty exciting developments in a shop that we hear very
little of, our Surveys and Mapping shop. It is an exciting little shop. I would invite members sometime to take the
time to look at what is being done there in our remote sensing operations. We have had some excellent co‑operation
from the federal government. We are
privy to being the custodians of some state‑of‑the‑art
equipment that is providing some very exciting information that we share with
other jurisdictions, with both private and public. We have every opportunity of maintaining that
Madam Chairperson, I would go on at great
length on these issues, but I invite honourable members' examination of this department. I invite honourable members' support for this
department. This is a department that
touches on the lives and the affairs of all Manitobans. All Manitobans, whether they are actively
involved or not, are concerned about what this department does.
You
do not have to be a forester or be involved in the forest industry to be
extremely concerned about the welfare and the health of our forest lands. I have received many letters in that
respect. You do not have to be, you
know, an active sportsman or a hunter, for instance, to be concerned about the
ongoing welfare of our wildlife species that we have in this land. It is a department that has a very wide brush
that covers the lives of most Manitobans, very often in a very positive way.
The
4.5 million to 5 million visitors that come and experience a pleasurable day or
two or weekend in our park system often take the time to write me a letter
indicating just how much they enjoyed that visit, sometimes pointing out some
of the deficiencies in the system which my staff try to correct.
Madam Chair, I will invite my staff to come
down and join me, and we will proceed with the departmental Estimates. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition
wish to make an opening statement?
* (2050)
Mr. Oscar Lathlin (The
Pas): Madam Chair, I agree with the minister that it
is regrettable that the time that we finally get in the end to go through the
Estimates for Natural Resources is quite limited.
However, I will try my best to cover the areas
that I had wanted to cover. I also want
to say that this will be the first time that I am going through the Natural
Resources Estimates process, and I look forward to asking questions from the
minister. I also wanted to say that I
thank the minister and other ministers who were involved in the fires and
floods that were happening in northern and rural
In
the Northern Affairs Estimates process, I had mentioned this to the Minister of
Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey). I wanted
to make sure that I do not forget to give the same kind of remarks to the
Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns), the Department of Highways and so
on. I thank their officials and staff
for all the work that they have done for the people at
I
wanted to also say, however, that as we go through the Estimates process, the
limited time that we have, I will be asking the minister questions that I think
would be pertinent to his ministry. Those will be my opening remarks. Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Does the acting critic for the second
official opposition wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (
He
commented toward the end of his opening remarks in terms of the importance of
natural resources and that you do not necessarily have to be a fisherman or a
hunter or whatever, an individual living in rural versus urban Manitoba, in
order to gain an appreciation and in fact a love for our natural
resources. I know in the past number of
months I have had the opportunity to go out and visit a number of the natural
beauties that are out in rural
The
minister made reference to the 4.5‑‑in around 4.5‑‑million
people that visit our parks and the substantial piece of legislation that is
before this Chamber now. There are a
number of problems that are in our parks.
All of us hear about them, especially from somewhat loud and overbearing
individuals that tend to want to monopolize some of our parks during the
weekends and the role that government has to ensuring that our parks are in fact
safe, so families and individuals can enjoy the beauties of our province in a
very peaceful manner.
It
was somewhat humorous. I understand the
department was looking at having a new security check, a bracelet of sorts,
that was supposed to be implemented for the July 1 long weekend, but because it
was ordered from the States, I understand, they believed that it was for July
the 4th, their Independence Day. So we had to go back to the traditional way of
checking people that were visiting our parks.
It
is things of that nature that I think go a long way, and when I say things of
that nature, I am referring to the wristbands in ensuring that in fact we can
have a much quicker and better response.
Even though we might not necessarily have the same financial resources
in terms of being able to provide the same labour or staff years to our parks,
maybe there are other things we can do that would make it that much easier and
that much more productive or easier in terms of being able to maximize the
resources that are in fact somewhat dwindling financial resources. That is very important.
The
minister made reference to Bill 41. Bill
41, I believe, the last time I looked at it, in excess of 100 presenters that
were wanting to say a few words, no doubt, on that bill. So, no doubt, Madam Chairperson, I trust that
the minister has in fact done his homework and consulted prior to bringing in
this bill. Not being the critic, I have not had the opportunity. I have just heard like most members inside
the Chamber through media and constituents some of the concerns that have been
raised on this bill. But I do trust that
the minister himself has in fact gone over the bill with all stakeholders prior
to the introduction of that particular bill.
In
his opening remarks, he also made reference to Endangered Spaces and the Ducks
Unlimited project. I have had the
opportunity to actually drive by it. I
have not been out to the site itself, but a very good friend of mine was
involved in the site and was fairly pleased and impressed with the natural
surroundings of that particular building and so forth.
It
was interesting hearing the one question earlier this spring in terms of the
number of ducks that were nesting compared to the previous year and how it was
down. It will be interesting to see how
that turns around in time, in hopes, Madam Chairperson, that we do see a
dramatic turnaround, and we do see that the minister's role in this particular
project is in fact a very successful one.
When he talks about the Endangered Spaces, I
can recall, and you will have to forgive me for not necessarily knowing the
name of the organization, but there was quite a bit of fanfare about land that
was going to be set aside.
So,
yes, the idea and the concept of preserving those Endangered Spaces and
expanding where we can, I think is a very positive thing, but it has to be
dealt with in a relatively short time span because of different industries that
want to use resources. We have to ensure
that those industries are, in fact, Madam Chairperson, not exploiting the
resources that we have, but to coin the phrase that the government likes to use
is the whole concept of sustainable development. I do believe that this department does have a
role in that.
Other areas that have been issues inside the
Chamber, the one of water diversion and the impact that that has and the role
that this particular department has on a water management policy or at least
the assistance in putting together something that will ensure that we do have a
strategy, a long‑term strategy for the province of Manitoba dealing with
water.
No
doubt, Madam Chairperson, I have not necessarily done justices in terms of
dealing with this department as our normal critic will, but we will give it the
best shot and see what happens. Thank
you.
Madam Chairperson: I remind committee, we will defer dealing with
1.(a) until all other resolutions and lines have been passed. At this time, I would request that the
minister's staff enter the Chamber.
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I just take this
opportunity to introduce members of the senior staff. To my immediate right, Mr. Umendra Mital, the
deputy minister of the department; Mr. Harvey Boyle, assistant deputy minister
and long‑time member of the department, former director of Regional
Services; Mr. Merlin Shoesmith, assistant deputy minister of the department;
along with Bill Podolsky, senior financial and administrative officer of the
department.
* (2100)
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I was going to suggest to the
committee and to the minister that because of the limited time that we have, we
go through this process in the same fashion as we just did with the Justice
ministry.
Mr. Enns: I would simply say, I have additional
staff. I have my Parks director, my
Wildlife director here. I have my Lands
director and Forestry director here. If
it is the will of the members to, for instance, focus in on some questions on
Forestry or on Parks, then the appropriate director would perhaps come and join
us down here, but certainly, in the interests of time, as freewheeling as you
want it.
Madam Chairperson: Is that the will of the committee? (agreed)
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, as I said, we have limited time,
and I am not going to spend too much time on asking long‑winded questions,
long questions or making speeches. I
would request that the minister make responses that are just as pointed and
relevant.
I
would like to start off from my base, and that is northern
I
know I have asked him and the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
questions during Question Period, but perhaps he could give us the more current
picture of the nursery at
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, as I have indicated to the
honourable member from time to time during questioning in the House,
principally because of the very substantial reduction in requirements of
seedlings because of the situation at The Pas with the Repap organization, the
operation at
There is no operation being planned for the
current year until such time that we have indications from our clients that
seedling requirements will go up. We are
fully short some 3 million seedlings requirements in our replanting because of
the curtailed activity by Repap.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, from that answer am I to
understand from the minister that perhaps down the road there might be a future
or the nursery being put into operation again and that we will have a nursery
providing seedlings for northern operations again?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, I will tell the honourable
member that I cannot accurately predict the future, but we are certainly
ensuring that we maintain the assets in shape.
We are examining proposals that could consider the disposal of the asset
either for ongoing nursery operations or some other activity.
Understandably, unless there are major
customers, which includes the department and/or the two principal forestry
operations, Abitibi and Repap, their future requirements I suspect would to a
large extent indicate whether or not in the not too distant future that
operation there could be restarted as a nursery operation.
Mr. Lathlin: My last question on that, Madam Chair, I
would simply ask the minister if it makes sense to him that in view of the
unemployment rate around The Pas area‑‑in the town of The Pas
itself, it is currently around 25 percent, and as we go into the remote areas of
The Pas, the outlying areas, the unemployment rate is around 80 and 90
percent. I know I have asked this
question of the minister before, but I would ask him again.
Does it make sense to him that we maybe revive
the nursery operation in The Pas and provide employment for those people in The
Pas area servicing a facility that is there at Repap, Moose Lake Loggers and
others who have from time to time, I know, come to the government asking for
tree‑planting contracts? Does it
make sense to him that we revive the nursery operation in The Pas area to
provide employment and also the accessibility just by the very nature of the
location of the nursery right next door to Repap? It makes sense for us to do that.
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, a slight correction in the
honourable member's statements. I do
remind him that the majority of the tree‑planting contracts are, in fact,
to northerners, but I do not wish to fudge what he was saying. He was speaking specifically about
reactivating the nursery and the employment that it has provided in the
past. We will study and continue to
study the alternatives, but in the final analysis this is the kind of squeeze
the department gets put in.
On
the one hand, we are trying to operate as efficiently as possible with available
dollars to provide maximum program dollars throughout the department. Unless otherwise directed, and particularly
if we have a fairly significant reduction in the number of seedlings required,
then a decision of this kind has to be made.
I appreciate the honourable member speaking on behalf of his
constituency in the community of The Pas.
We just as soon we had maintained our major seedling operation in his
area, in his constituency, but the simple fact of the matter is that the
operation that we have at Hadashville is our main facility, and that, with some
additional private sourcing, is providing the current requirements for our
seedling crops in Manitoba.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I would like to move into
another area. I know we have an agreement
here to, because of the time left, go all over the map, I guess. So now I would like to talk about the
Freshwater Fish Marketing board and the state of the fishing industry in
* (2110)
Not
that long ago there was talk of the Ministry of Natural Resources introducing
legislation that would enable people who are involved in the fishing industry
to be able to get permits and sell directly to retail outlets, thereby
bypassing the Freshwater Fish Marketing board.
Could the minister update us on whether he will be coming forth with
legislation or what is he going to do?
Mr. Enns: I am appreciative, in the first instance, of
the member's co‑operation in passing at committee stage the other day, I
believe, or did he pass the quota entitlement provisions of the bill? I coincidentally was involved in a national
fisheries meeting in
Allow me to answer the question in this
way. There is a concern that we have as
government, that we share in the department, that of the fish caught in
It
has been indicated to me from different sources that part of the problem is
that the marketing structure is just too rigid or it is too export
orientated. Of course, export markets
are crucially important to the overall health of the industry. In fact that is why we are experiencing some
of the difficulties, because of the added competition that we are getting
principally from the
It
was suggested to me that perhaps we should loosen some of the strings, the
monopoly of total supply and management control that the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Corporation has by allowing the fishermen that added provision. Right now the commercial fisherman can sell
you and I fish as consumers, but they are prohibited by the Freshwater Fish,
you know monopoly control of marketing, of selling into the retail trade. I had indicated to honourable members, indeed
the indication was made and reference was made to it in the throne speech, that
I would be bringing forth amendments that would enable the commercial fishermen
to do exactly what the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) indicates, that is, to
sell directly into the retail outlet.
However, I have had, since making those views
known, I would say a large amount of mail from fishermen from throughout the
province. I have listened to senior
members in my department in the Fisheries Branch. They have advised me and counselled me that
on balance although the fishermen in different parts, depending on what part of
the province you go to, have their concerns or have their complaints about the
agency that legislatively has the mandate to market their fish they
nonetheless, on the whole, are not supportive of doing anything that would
structurally, in their view, weaken the capability of the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Corporation to continue operating as it has in the past.
The
short of it, Madam Chair, is that I was persuaded to withdraw that portion of
the bill that would have made that amendment or would have made that change
official in legislation. I have done so
partly because of two things. Number one, President Dunn of the Freshwater Fish
Marketing Corporation assures me that when applications are made by a primary
producer or by a commercial fisherman or a group co‑op of fishermen, if
they wish to make an arrangement where it makes common sense to sell directly
to retail trade, they can do so under existing legislation by permit; that is,
the corporation can do that.
Furthermore, re‑examining and looking a
little harder, I knew it but I did not know the extent of it, we have within
the Department of Natural Resources vested in the power of the director of
Fisheries, the Department of Natural Resources also has the authority to under
special permit enable a commercial fisherman to sell directly into a licensed,
that is, we would licence it as a department, a retail outlet. Under these circumstances, and we are
prepared to use them advisedly‑‑I do not wish to provide any
serious weakening of the marketing structure, because I am persuaded by
literally several‑‑well, I do not want to exaggerate, but certainly
many, it is probably in the hundreds of letters, letters that other commercial
fishermen have signed. I know the member
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) has been copied on many of these letters, that are
urging me not to make a fundamental change in the legislation.
So,
Madam Chair, I have listened to that advice.
I am satisfied that what we have in the legislation that was approved in
committee is sufficient in terms of what the commercial fisheries require at
this time. I only wish that I could
legislate better prices and I could legislate better catches.
I
understand and I am concerned about the state and the health of the commercial
fisheries in
While there, however, a great deal of the
discussion among the other ministers and the federal government representatives
hinged along the support programs, income support programs, that are being made
available principally to the eastern coast fisheries. These are substantial programs, in the
hundreds of millions of dollars. If
indeed the recommendation of the committee that has studied the problems of the
disappearing cod fish, a total closure, is in fact put in place, then we could
be looking at an income support program upwards to the billions of dollars,
something beginning to rival the kind of aid that the prairie grain farmer has
received in years past to support his difficulties with respect to commodity
pricing.
I
made the case, and I have made this case in the House. I invite the member's rapport that while I do
not believe that the‑‑I certainly had to keep that in mind while I
was attending that conference. Fisheries
is a major issue on both the western coast and on the eastern coast, but I
reminded my colleagues that it does not really matter. I can commiserate with the thousands of
fishermen that are facing difficulty in
If
there is going to be a national support program of some kind paid for out of
the national treasury, then I would like to see a proportionate share of it
coming to
I
was pleased that my colleagues accommodated me in that request and that that
position presented by myself on behalf of Manitoba commercial fishermen was officially
incorporated in the communique that was issued at the conclusion of the
conference and will be forwarded to the First Ministers' Conference for further
consideration this August.
* (2120)
I
am referring specifically to the fact that if we had a little bit of support
from our federal colleagues, fairly modest in the scale of the problem that is
facing commercial fishing in Canada, say, several hundred thousand dollars that
we could add and put onto our Freight Assistance Program, that could keep a
number of fishermen on the lakes in the coming year.
Mr. Lathlin: Yes, I commend the minister for having
listened to the advice of his officials and staff and for having paid attention
to the letters that I know he has received in regard to the proposed
legislation that was talked about in the throne speech in regard to the
Freshwater Fish Marketing Board.
I
know he says that he lobbied his colleagues and so on to come up with some sort
of a program come August when First Ministers are meeting. I would very much like to encourage the
minister. He says he is concerned about
the state of the fishing industry in Manitoba, and I know that he is because
once in a while he and I talk about the problems that fishermen are facing in
Manitoba, but I would encourage him or recommend or advise him that maybe he
should be more aggressive in his lobbying with his federal counterparts, and
not only his federal counterparts but his cabinet and colleagues as well, with
a view to maybe putting money where his mouth is, as the saying goes.
That is not being negative you know, like I am
coining that phrase but to look at the fishing industry in Manitoba in the same
light as his cabinet and colleagues look at agriculture and all of these
programs that we have pertaining to different industries, so that is in
Manitoba. I would also like to again
encourage him to maybe put more pressure on his federal counterparts and
perhaps persuade them to view fishing as they do in eastern
I
give the minister credit for doing his part, but I would hasten to add that it
is fine to talk about these things or things that I want to do, but I suppose
it would even be more meaningful if we can start to see some results of the
lobbying that he is doing. I thank him
for that.
I
would like to ask maybe just one question on wild rice development in
Mr. Enns: I want to thank the honourable member for his
general comments with respect to the fisheries problems, and just before we
leave them I want to say to him very directly because I believe he is a person
that could be, both as a member of the House here and as a member of the
community that he represents, helpful to us.
There are some specific programs that involve federal dollars, some of
them that are being routed more directly to the aboriginal community. We have some specific programs in our
Wildlife Branch that are impacted on this program, and our whole trapping
program, and also in the commercial.
I
made the point‑‑and I do not have to explain that to the honourable
member for The Pas, he is well aware of it‑‑a high percentage of
our commercial fishermen are of aboriginal extraction in an area all too often
with already abnormally high unemployment rates, as the member just indicated
earlier. I am looking for his support,
quite frankly, that by whatever means that we can achieve it‑‑and
the federal government is in some cases prepared to move some of these dollars
into
I
just want to suggest to him that there has been a good association with the
aboriginal community in some of these programs through our department where we
have been able to employ a number of people in our fur programs, our trapping
programs. I view it in the same way that
if the federal government is disposed to be of some help to us for a number of
reasons, because they feel a further responsibility to our aboriginal people,
because they feel a responsibility to high unemployment areas such as the
North, because they want to treat commercial fishermen as fairly as they treat
commercial fishermen anywhere else in Canada in support programs. For these and many reasons, I will invite the
honourable member's support in trying to bring about whatever success we may
have in this area.
With respect to the question on wild rice, I
remind the honourable member that the actual administration of the wild rice
programs is now housed in the Ministry of Northern Affairs. My department through our Crown lands
director, we are still engaged in providing the leasing arrangements, I
believe, for the wild rice business. I
am advised that last year was not a good year. I do not know whether it is
climate, high water or what specifically the reason was.
We
are too early in this year to estimate what kind of a season we will have in
the wild rice industry. Technically the
wild rice program is now administered by the Department of Northern Affairs,
and I an really not in the best position to answer these questions on that
issue.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, recently we have had in Wabowden
and
So
I am going to take that opportunity again tonight to ask him. You see, I travel back and forth to the North
and the south. I travel by vehicle out
on the highway, and occasionally I use the plane to travel around the North.
So
I get to see a lot of things that are happening around the North, and of course
I make it my business to ask questions wherever I am, whether it is in my
constituency or in another constituency.
But the question that I wanted to ask him was: Why is it that it is necessary
for us to hire people from the south, ship them all the way up to
Now, I know that he has got firetac crews in
the communities. I visited with those
people in Pukatawagan when I was there last.
In the spring I was in Pukatawagan and that is where I visited these
people fighting a small fire just on the outskirts of the community, for the
benefit of the Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger).
But, you know, 10 or 15 years ago I remember
the majority if not all of the firefighters were hired locally. Very seldom did you have people recruited
from
The
question I have for the minister is: For
example, if the people locally are not trained, does it not make sense for the
minister to train those people so that they acquire the technical skills that
he was talking about here during Question Period, the technical skills, the
supervisory skills, again, with a view to addressing the unemployment
problem? That is one question.
* (2130)
The
other question is: When the rate of
wages was merely five or six dollars a day to fight fires, why was it
convenient then to hire strictly locals?
Because who would come from
But
now it seems that when those salaries and wages have been substantially
enhanced, we now have people from the south coming up north to come and fight
forest fires, in my view, under the guise of providing that expertise,
supervisory service and so on. But I am
of the opinion that because the wages have been enhanced, now all of a sudden
we get people from southern Manitoba wanting to go up North because the wages
are better, thereby leaving locals to be content with the five or six, seven,
eight firetac crew members that are allotted to each community.
I
remember that when there were forest fires in the northern communities, our
people would be afraid even to go out on a highway especially if they did not
feel like going out to the forest fire at that particular time to go and fight
forest fires, because Natural Resources people would come around and say to
them, if you do not agree to come and fight the fire, then you will go to
jail. So people actually were afraid to
walk around in the open whenever there were forest fires in their communities
because of this thing that Natural Resources people used to tell them.
Mind you, a lot of them went out to fight
forest fires for $5 or $6 a day, and like I said, I remember one fire that I
was fighting in
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, I am reminded of history when the
honourable member talks about his friends and neighbours being fearful of
walking through their community at fire time for fear that, like the British
navy used to impress, used to roam the pubs and taverns to get their sailors
conscripted to run the British navy or something like that.
I
will try to explain. Fifteen, 20 years
ago we did not have the professional Tac crews.
We did not get into this till about eight or nine years ago. We now have on hand, and these really are
first front‑line professional firefighters, of which 75 to 80 percent of
them are aboriginal and are northerners.
We
have them in different parts of the province, and we have them stationed. These are our full time; they have full
summer employment from May through to end of October, beginning of
November. Very specific to the question,
we had some 104 men employed in the
We
maintain Firetac crews in the North whether we have a fire there or not. They are there and they are being paid
because that is like your insurance policy.
You buy an insurance policy on your home in the hope that it is not
going to burn down, but you still pay the premium every year. Well, we pay the premium of keeping these
Firetac crews stationed in the North. If
the fire is of the magnitude and the scale that the groups that are stationed
in the North cannot handle, then of course we bring in the source from wherever
they are, from the Whiteshell, from eastern
Yes, we are paying them commensurately on a
different pay scale, but I reject categorically that we are denying northerners
employment from the Firetac crews. The
vast majority of them are northerners, but they are certainly open to
southerners as well, and I remind the honourable member that, that Pre‑Cambrian
Shield that comes down all the way down to the U.S. border at the Whiteshell,
all of that is prone to forest fires and the communities in the Lac du Bonnet
area, in the Whiteshell area, in the Bissett area, they all make the same claim
that the honourable member makes on behalf of his people from The Pas and
surrounding area.
They would like to have their fair share of
employment opportunities being recruited from their region. I am satisfied that, under the capable
direction of senior staff, we maintain one of the best fire departments when
you compare it, you know, dollar for dollar across the province. We protect more hectares of forest land with
fewer dollars than most other jurisdictions do, and we do a pretty good job at
it. Again, this is a subjective kind of
a statement to make.
Could we do a better job? Of course we could do a better job if we had
some more dollars, but then, you know, I also recognize that in a province like
Manitoba we do not attempt to, nor should we, action all fires. There are fires that we do not action for
different reasons. We believe that in
the main we are doing a reasonably good job.
The
overall support for the fire department, despite our budgetary problems, has in
fact been increased. Prior to the '88‑89
disastrous fires, our kind of main base‑line budget that we call our fire
department stood at some $6 million. That
was elevated to $8 million so that we have a better ongoing state of readiness
and preparedness in the fighting of forest fires.
* (2140)
I
do not know whether my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness) is
around. He was here a little while ago. He can be pretty mean and pretty tightfisted
at different times. Oh, pardon me, Madam
Chair, I should strike that from the record. That is liable to haunt me. I can honestly say that having experienced
the tremendous fires, the history‑making fires of '89, where we ran up a
bill of some $40 million to $50 million and in total $68 million in fighting
forest fires, that my department has never been denied the necessary funds to
fight forest fires if we could make the appropriate case for the method and the
manner in which we intended to spend the money.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I would like to ask the minister
next on the status of co‑management agreements. I know at least a year ago, a year and a half
ago there was in some areas of
Mr. Enns: Yes, the department continues to work with
various Indian bands in trying to arrange for co‑management agreements.
We are successful in some and not so successful in others. We have in place some 13 or 14 agreements,
species‑specific agreements, in different parts of the province. We have some specific problems relating to
specific species like the sturgeon fish on the
There is a serious concern about the ongoing
viability, sustainability of that important species of fish on the
We
have memorandums of understanding currently in places like the Hollow Water
Reserve with respect to moose. The
member, of course, is well familiar. He
played a hand in the development of the ongoing success of The Pas moose
management board.
I
indicate to the honourable member that an area that is going to take up a
considerable amount of time of the department and senior staff is the
conclusions of agreements with respect to the Northern Flood communities, that
the minister, my colleague of Native Affairs and Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey)
has announced that we have several communities now accepting the agreements. Of
course, included in these agreements are very significant obligations on the
part of the government of
So,
Madam Chair, it is still my belief that there is no other ready alternative to
continuing this effort to work out these kinds of co‑management
agreements. The work is sometimes slow,
and we sometimes have setbacks, but in the long run, if we as a department wish
to carry out the mandate, that we feel very strongly that that is to ensure the
sustainability of our natural resources, to ensure that our children and our
children's children will enjoy wildlife, will enjoy the natural environment as
we have it today to be passed on to future generations, then we have to come to
terms with how we access them or how we limit access to them in certain
instances and certain species.
Although, Madam Chair, you are giving me the
evil eye right now, I will report to my Wildlife director that the chair of
this committee is concerned about the abundance of black bear at a favourite
camping spot of her and her husband somewhere up at
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, I just have maybe a couple of
final questions. In the area of
waterfowl management, the North American Waterfowl Management Agreement, I
believe it is called, the concern that has been expressed recently by different
groups for the bag limit to be placed on certain species of waterfowl. I would
like to ask the minister to maybe briefly explain or share with us the trends,
if I can say that, in the last three years, and currently what it is like.
Because every once in a while I do read some
of these reports that come out, and particularly in the last week or two weeks
there has been concern expressed by some groups that the population of some
species is going down. I do not know if
the minister has actually received any representations from certain groups with
regard to the waterfowl population which is apparently having some problems
right now.
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, the setting of bag limits is a
fairly complicated process that involves an understanding and trying to work co‑operatively
with a number of other jurisdictions.
These are, of course, migratory birds that pass through a number of
jurisdictions and there has been a growing amount of co‑operation
developed as these migratory birds, whether they are duck or geese, fly from
their northern habitat on their way south to their wintering grounds.
Of
course, it is always of concern to us that if, indeed, our professional biologists
tell us that we have reason to concern ourselves about the numbers, whether
they are declining or whether there should be adjustments in the bag limits
during the different hunting seasons, the different jurisdictions, that we work
as co‑operatively as we can so as to be fair to the people in the
different jurisdictions.
So
that there is a lot of consultation on the federal level with an organization
like the Canadian Wildlife Service which tends to provide the national scope to
these discussions, and our own situation as well as with our American
counterparts.
I
can indicate to him that in the main, there will be no significant
changes. I believe we are changing the
make‑up of the goose bag limit, reducing the
Then again, we have the kind of regional thing
that takes into account the kind of hunting pressure that birds are liable to
be under as compared to other parts of the region as well, other parts of the
province, so there will be a slight reduction of the Canada goose bag limit in
this coming hunting season.
I
understand that the duck populations‑‑we are hopeful that with the
better moisture conditions both last fall and certainly this year that
hopefully our duck populations are beginning to show some signs of
recovery. We have been seriously
concerned right across the North American continent about the level of duck
populations and, of course, into a number of major programs like the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan and others, not just in Manitoba, but in
Saskatchewan and Alberta as well and other parts of the country, to try to
restore the duck levels to, in terms of using a benchmark, I believe, the 1970 population
levels.
* (2150)
Generally speaking, the waterfowl bag limits
will be roughly the same. There will be
some adjustments within species in certain areas of the province but, generally
speaking, they will be the same as last year.
Mr. Lathlin: Madam Chair, unfortunately I did have a lot of
questions that I was going to ask of the minister, but I know other members
were co‑operative in making sure that I did get some time in this evening
on Natural Resources. I am grateful for
that. So with that in mind, I am not
going to take too much more time because I know other members are anxious to go
through their Estimates process.
So
lastly, I want to thank the minister for sharing that information with us here
this evening. I look forward to working with
the minister in the future and hopefully in the same co‑operative way
that he and I seem to be working, at the start anyway.
I
will commit myself to support him in the area of lobbying the federal
government, but I would also like to remind him to lobby his colleagues maybe
just a little bit more and see if some of the programs can be reinstated or at
least put back to the level that they were before they were cut in the last
budget. Once again, I thank the minister.
Mr. Enns: I express my appreciation. I certainly want to indicate to the member
for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) my willingness to work with him and I want to make
very clear to him that he has a standing offer to consult with me or with
anyone of my directors and senior staff of the department, for a full briefing
on any issues that concern him or his constituency. He should feel very free and welcome to do
that.
You
know, I could say something about the previous critic of my department, the
honourable member for‑‑we always refer to as Carla in the
House. I forget her constituency.
An Honourable Member: Radisson.
Mr. Enns: For Radisson, but I am delighted to work with
the member for The Pas (Mr. Lathlin) as chief critic of the official opposition
in this Chamber and look forward, with his help, to be able to perhaps when we
meet next year on this occasion, have some progress, particularly on some of
the specific issues that, I know, are important to him, ones that he has
brought to my attention here this evening.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairperson: 1. Administration and Finance (b) Executive
Support (1) Salaries $257,800‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures
$83,400.
Mr. Lamoureux: Yes, Madam Chair, I was just wanting to ask
the minister, he was commenting on it in terms of the freshwater marketing
board and the legislation that is now before the Chamber.
I
know I had opportunity to meet with a commercial outlet or retail outlet and
they had asked myself if, in fact, they would be allowed to purchase direct
from a commercial fisher. My question to
the minister is: What would be the
process if a retailer was wanting to buy it direct?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, I would advise that party
contact the director of Fisheries of my department.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chair, is that currently done now? Are there retail outlets that do purchase
straight out?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chair, as I responded to the member for
The Pas (Mr. Lathlin), the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation issues a
number of special permits; that is, the corporation issues them. But I should
indicate to him that they have to date‑‑and that has been part of
the problem‑‑not issued any in the city of
But
the Fisheries Branch will be issuing letters of authorization for retailers in
We
require this for our own record keeping.
We have responsibilities with respect to total catch. We have problems with respect to maintaining
some record keeping of the total harvest of a particular lake, a particular
fisheries. We demand load slips and so
forth so that the Fisheries data, important for biological reasons, maintain
their integrity.
So
it is not wide open, if you like. The
effort has to be made and arrangement has to be made, a special permit has to
be provided to enable that transaction to take place; that is, from the
commercial fishermen to a retail outlet.
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Chairperson, I understand then the City
of
Mr. Enns: I would ask the honourable member for
I
can indicate to you that, you know, just in the last little while there has
been a commercial operator, Olson, from the Gimli area that has opened a
substantial retail outlet here in
Mr. Lamoureux: Madam Deputy Speaker, does the marketing
board, other than the issuing of a permit, or the minister issuing a permit‑‑do
either one of them play any role after a permit has been issued? In particular, for example, are there minimum
prices that have to be established or anything of this nature?
* (2200)
Mr. Enns: No, Madam Chairperson. There would, of course, be those kind of
requirements with respect to health inspectors, you know, the kind of
regulations to be met, requirements to be met that you would expect for a food
product‑‑and particularly quite frankly a fish product which is
vulnerable to problems if it is not kept under the right circumstances. But when dealing outside of the marketing
structure of the marketing board, then it is entirely an open market situation,
which is, if an arrangement that is satisfactory to both the retailer and the
commercial fisherman arrived at, that is their business.
Mr. Lamoureux: Finally, Madam Chairperson, just again for
further clarification, Cantor's Grocery, which is a wonderful grocery store in
the north end‑‑there is lots of tradition in the north end in
itself‑‑for example, does want to sell fresh market fish and would
like to purchase straight from the fishermen and then be able to sell off their
shelves. The minister is indicating that
this is now possible. All he would have
to do is just get in contact and there is no reason that he can see that would
prevent him from getting a permit.
Mr. Enns: Well, again, certainly arrangement can be
made, but let us understand that if Mr. Cantor wishes to sell fish he would
have to make arrangement through permit with a specific commercial fisherman. In other words, he cannot simply open up his
doors to any and all commercial fishermen, having them drop off their
catch. We need to be able to, for our
record keeping, for our arrangements‑‑this is, if you like, to some
extent a bit of a‑‑you know, there is concern certainly being made
by the corporation that this may jeopardize their overall marketing decision,
not unlike some of the concerns that are being expressed about the making
available the sale of barley, for instance, on open market and concerns
expressed by the Wheat Board which previously had a total monopoly control of
the sale of that product in the agricultural sector. So it is a controlled and somewhat limited
opening up, if you like, of the marketing of
The
aim, the objective, that I have as Fisheries minister is that Manitobans
consume more
Now
the corporation takes a slightly different attitude. They are saying that their
marketing arrangements with their SuperValus and Safeways are jeopardized if we
allow independent people to be selling their product, if you like, in
competition with theirs.
You
know, we have some specific difficulties in specific fisheries. Whitefish, for instance, right now we are
having some difficulty; the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is having
difficulty in marketing. It is a premium
fish. We perhaps are not marketing it as
innovatively as we could here in
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $83,400‑‑pass.
1.(c) Venture
1.(d) Financial Services (1) Salaries $995,600‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $215,700‑‑pass.
1.(e) Human Resource Management (1) Salaries
$872,400‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $151,300‑‑pass.
1.(f) Systems Co‑ordination (1) Salaries
$184,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $31,600‑‑pass.
1.(g) Administrative Services (1) Salaries
$532,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $368,000‑‑pass.
1.(h) Internal Audit (1) Salaries $161,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $8,500‑‑pass.
Item
2. Regional Operations (a) Headquarters Operations (1) Salaries $1,583,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,459,800‑‑pass; (3) Problem Wildlife
Control $143,200‑‑pass; (4) Less:
Recoverable from Other Appropriations ($260,000)‑‑pass.
2.(b) Northwest Region (1) Salaries $1,807,200‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $695,200‑‑pass.
2.(c) Northeast Region (1) Salaries $1,631,400‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $816,400‑‑pass.
2.(d) Central Region (1) Salaries $4,278,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,386,700‑‑pass.
2.(e) Eastern Region (1) Salaries $2,604,800‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $750,700‑‑pass.
2.(f) Western Region (1) Salaries $3,975,900‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,234,300‑‑pass.
2.(g) Fire Program Development and Evaluation
(1) Salaries $324,700‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $196,600‑‑pass;
(3) Grant Assistance $20,000.
2.(h) Fire Pre‑Suppression Program (1)
Salaries $1,644,600‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $3,151,000.
2.(j) Helitac Program (1) Salaries $329,100‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,812,100‑‑pass.
2.(k) Firetac Program (1) Salaries $208,500‑‑pass;
(2) Other Expenditures $1,173,800‑‑(pass).
Resolution 12.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $30,967,500 for Natural Resources, Regional Operations, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 3. Resource Programs (a) Water Resources.
Mr.
Paul Edwards (St. James): Madam
Chairperson, let me say at the outset that due to the vagaries of the
parliamentary system as it has worked out in this Legislature, we do not have
time on a yearly basis to deal in some detail with every department.
The
reality is that this year we have very little time to deal with this
department. That is a matter of great
regret to me, but other departments higher up the ladder, as it were, this year
got a much more thorough review. There
have been years in my experience where this department has qualified for a
higher level of review. So perhaps as
long as we every once in a while get the Department of Natural Resources
through a thorough review we should be satisfied.
It
is not a perfect system. I do not
particularly like this system, but I simply put those comments on the record to
indicate that it is unfortunate that we are racing through a number of these
appropriations with millions and millions and millions of dollars being
spent. I am not suggesting that the
votes might not have been the same, but I think it is regrettable we did not
have time for a more thorough review.
Now, having gotten to the Water Resources
area, I wanted to ask the minister to indicate whether or not his department
will in fact be involved now in putting together the further information and
research that has been requested by the Clean Environment Commission at the
time that they decided to stop the hearings into the
* (2210)
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, I am advised that to date
we have not yet received from the commission and/or through the department that
it reports to‑‑but I believe it would be directly from the
commission itself‑‑the details of the request for additional
information.
What we have received is what the honourable
member is privy to, simply a one‑and‑a‑half‑page letter
indicating in general terms the nature of the additional information that is
being sought by the Clean Environment Commission. We await the specific details of this, and
then I would be able to respond more specifically to the honourable member.
I
would assume that certainly in terms of those areas that impact directly on our
current or past or present management of the Assiniboine River, whether it is
through the structures that we have in place such as the management of the
Assiniboine River, whether it is through the structures that we have in place
such as the management of the reservoir and the dam, any data that we have or
further refinement of the data that we have with respect to that information
that is normally within the purview of this department, we would be providing
that additional information to the commission.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, the Department of Natural
Resources had representatives, obviously, at the hearings. Is it the minister's information that in fact
there will be requests for some further research and information from the
Department of Natural Resources? Is that
confirmed? Is that something the
minister knows is coming and just does not know the extent of that?
Mr. Enns: Again, Madam Chairperson, my understanding,
and it is certainly the only information that I have at this moment, is that it
is further information that the commission seeks. It is not a question of research from our
point of view. It is a question of perhaps
clarifying information that we have presented in part to the commission. I am really not in a position, not having
seen precisely the details of the request for additional information.
Madam Chairperson, while I am no my feet,
allow me to introduce the not so recently, but fairly recently appointed
Director of our Water Resources branch, Mr. David Sexton, a long‑time
employee of the Department of Natural Resources.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I appreciate the minister
indicating that he does not have the information available to him to answer in
detail what will be requested or may be requested and provided by the
department. Have there been any
discussions with the commission as to the resumption date of hearings at this
time or the possible resumption date of hearings?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, my deputy minister advises
me that he has been in contact with the chair of the commission to ascertain
precisely the kind of questions that the honourable member raises as to the
nature of the additional information that the commission is requesting and
understandably, from our administrative point of view, some kind of time frame
that the commission is expecting this additional information to be provided to
the commission.
That, again, awaits the formal request, if I
can put it that way, by way of a submission as to what precisely the
information is that the commission requires.
My
deputy further advises me that it is essentially a clarification of the
information already put on the record by various departmental people,
principally, our Water Resources people, that the commission is requiring
further information on.
Mr. Edwards: Accordingly, am I to take from the minister's
answers that in fact, while the request has been made for some time frame,
there has been no indication thus far as to what that time frame is from the
commission?
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, my staff informs me that we
anticipate having the details of this additional information request from the
commission some time towards the end of this week, that it is the opinion of
the chair of the Clean Environment Commission that hearings will likely resume
this fall, but he was no more specific than that.
Mr. Edwards: Does the minister know if it is the intention‑‑has
he had discussions with the Clean Environment Commission as to whether or not
the hearings would recommence, that is, start again and go back to the
locations that they had already been with the new information, essentially
starting the hearings over? Or is it
their intention to, with the new information, just continue where they left
off, as it were?
Mr. Enns: Let me make it very clear that I have not
been in touch with the Clean Environment Commission, nor do I have any
intention of doing so.
My
information is that this information is placed on the public registry. It is made available to all those who are
participating in the proceedings. I
cannot answer for the commission as to whether they will simply resume where
they kind of left off in their scheduling of hearings, which may well be the
case. I do not particularly see them to
do anything other than that. Again, I
would not wish to presume or to answer for the actions of the commission.
Information supplied to me by my senior staff
is simply that this added information is made available to the commission, and
it then gets placed on what is called the public registry, which then can be
accessed by all who have been following this issue and who wish to make
themselves available of this added information.
Mr. Edwards: My concern, Madam Chairperson, is that if in
fact new information, clarification, whatever one wants to call it, comes
forward and the commission continues where it left off, that some presenters
early on in the schedule in some of the locations may be prejudiced by having
made their presentations without the benefit of that information, which may
well be things that they would want to comment on or would have wanted in front
of them when they were presenting.
So
there is a question of process there.
Whenever you abort a quasi‑judicial process like this midway, you
have that difficulty of dealing with those who have not had the chance to
comment on the new information by virtue of the fact that they have made their
presentation already. So that was the
basis of my concern.
What I understand the minister to be saying is,
and it is accurate, he is not in control of that process, and the Clean
Environment Commission presumably will make that determination.
Madam Chairperson, by way of further question,
I would like to ask if it is still the position of the Department of Natural
Resources that the proposal, as currently set before the commission, is a good
one and one that the department is recommending approval of.
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, just on the first part of
the honourable member's comments, I believe that the word "abort" is
perhaps too strong in terms of describing the commission's actions.
My
understanding is, the word that the commission employed, they simply suspended
hearings for the opportunity of garnering some further information that they
felt was important. How they will use or
how they will ensure how that works into the decision‑making process on
the part of the commission, that, of course, is entirely within the purview of
the commission as the honourable member has indicated.
The
response to the second part of his question with the position of the Water
Resources branch is on record with the commission as placed there by a number
of our competent people. It is certainly the continuing view of the branch that
the request by the proponents for this particular allocation of water from the
* (2220)
Mr. Edwards: Was it the position of the Water Resources
branch and the department that there need also be a federal review of this,
given the incursions into areas of federal jurisdiction? I believe a lot of that was discussed even in
the materials put forward by the department, the impact on fisheries, the
impact on the waterways. Being a transboundary
waterway, there was even some suggestion of a potential impact on migratory
bird patterns. Did the department ever
take a position as to whether or not this warranted a federal review of some
sort? I understand PFRA was involved,
but a federal environmental review under the federal environmental legislation
need occur?
Mr. Enns: As my colleague the Minister of Environment
(Mr. Cummings) in
I
just want to take this indication to tell the honourable member though that
from our perspective what we are talking about is a river that has been under
very rigid management control by the Department of Natural Resources, namely by
the Water Services branch. We determine
constantly the levels of waters that are flowing in that basin ever since the
creation of the
The
regime that is within that basin, as the honourable member as a Winnipegger‑‑well,
maybe a bit too young a Winnipegger, but if he was of my vintage‑‑knows,
fluctuates to overflowing and has overflowed in many years. We have used the
So
when you ask experienced Water Resources people as to whether or not 20 cfs can
be taken out of the system without any discernible effect on the river, I have
to believe them quite frankly. They are
the same fellows who turn open the valves and shoot 25,000 cubic feet a second
of water out of there for weeks on end, 15 times out of the last 19 years, and
we have had many drought years, Madam Chairperson.
When they tell me that there would be less
water today in the
The
city of Brandon that we hear a great deal about, all that fine lowland where
they have a city park and all that, that flooded out just about every three
years, if I am not mistaken, that Grand Valley part of the Assiniboine River
prior to the construction of Shellmouth Dam.
I
still have constituents of mine who thank me in the Elie, St. Eustache, both
sides of the Assiniboine River east of Portage, that on a far too regular basis
were flooded out because of the flatness of the Assinboine River, the structure
of the Assiniboine River and the flooding problems that caused in some of the
most productive, some of the finest agricultural land in the province‑‑no,
I will amend that‑‑in the world in that Portage Plains country that
on a regular basis was prevented from being farm property because of the
flooding difficulties.
Well, Madam Chairperson, these are the same
people. In fact, literally they are the
same people. Mr. David Sexton was
involved in the planning of these structures as a young engineer who today are
telling me and advising me that they can with some confidence accommodate the
request of the proponent.
Mr. Edwards: Madam Chairperson, I recall we had some discussion
about this in the House earlier. I just
wanted to clarify, he has mentioned the
What
was the plan that was put forward by the department in terms of using that
water to supplement the
Mr. Enns: I do not know whether the honourable member
has the Stephenfield reservoir mixed up with the Shellmouth and Lake of the
Prairies mixed up, but the Shellmouth reservoir certainly continues to
accommodate the water supply throughout the
We,
at the department, I think maybe with the co‑operation of the PFRA, on a
temporary basis pumped water from the Assiniboine into the La Salle River, just
immediately east of Portage la Prairie.
We did that for two summers. I
can recall asking my engineers at that time, well, what would it cost to put in
a permanent diversion, because this was costing us about $90,000 dollars a
year, to pump with the temporary pumps?
Well, they told me at the time it would run
about $300,000 to $400,000. I said,
well, let us do it, and we did it.
Today, the R.M. of Macdonald has one of the most sophisticated water
distribution systems supplying its whole municipality, including the
communities like Domain and
The
people who enjoy the
Quite frankly, I suspect‑‑I do not
know for sure‑‑but I suspect that the fellows that were operating
the Shellmouth reservoir gave it an extra half‑an‑inch turn at some
particular point in May, or June or July, to make sure that those eight or 10
cubic feet per second that were being diverted from the Assiniboine to the La
Salle were replaced by that additional water from the Lake of the Prairies
reservoir, behind Shellmouth Dam.
* (2230)
We
have a report that says that 48 percent of the water that we have stored there
is not allocated for any purposes. It is
available for allocation, in other words.
So when my department says that there will be no discernible effect,
they really mean that. They mean that
they will offset any amounts. Now, that
does not mean that in lower years‑‑we have had lower years, the
waters are rising right now‑‑that in lower years that there will
not be low water.
What they can also tell with certainty,
because we have the records that predate the dam times, when in the '30s, you
really had low water in the
Mr. Edwards: Do I understand the minister to say that the
department would use up to 48 percent of the water in the Lake of the Prairies
to ensure that the
Mr. Enns: I thank the honourable member for allowing me
to respond to that. That simply is an
indication of the amount of unallocated, if you like, because the question of
allocation has come up. It comes up at
hearings of the kind that the commission is inquiring about, about the amount
of water that in fact has already been allocated.
What kind of a handle do we have on the
licences that we have out? What
satisfaction do we have as to whether or not the amounts of water that they are
licensed for are being‑‑the conditions of the licence are being
adhered to? Some of those are very
legitimate questions. We are dedicating
a considerable amount of our energies into refining our system of ensuring that
we know precisely the kind of water that is being taken out of the river under
our current licensing system. We will be
beefing up and strengthening that portion of our data collection.
Certainly it would not be the intention of the
department, nor do we want to indicate that 48 percent of the reservoir is
available for allocation. That is simply
a base figure. When you take out the
current requirements, the city of
They have also indicated that because of a
change of technology and new equipment they will not be using that water at the
thermal plant in four or five years. In
about four or five years that demand for that water will no longer be there, so
that frees up more water. There are
constant gives and takes to the system.
This requirement would require about 5 or 6 percent of that 48 percent
allocation, but it certainly can be accommodated.
Mr. Edwards: It is my understanding that the Lake of the
Prairies itself, and I do not know the area well, has development around it
which is very concerned about the water level on that lake. When the minister says, the 5 or 6 percent
that may be required to supplement the
Mr. Enns: Madam Chairperson, allow me firstly to
indicate, I believe that my department and the Water Resources personnel
involved have done an excellent job in terms of meeting the commitments that
they made to the government of the day in saying that they could provide
engineering structures that would floodproof the city of Winnipeg, floodproof
the flood plains of the Assiniboine, particularly east of Portage and indeed
all up the Assiniboine River. They have
accomplished it, and the member points out a problem that evolved very shortly
after the reservoir was formed.
Certainly my good friend and colleague the
Minister of Rural Development (Mr. Derkach), who represents that area, speaks
very strongly on behalf of‑‑they view that lake as a prime
recreation area, which it has become. It
has become one of the most important sports angling fisheries in the
When my environmentalist friends come at me
from all angles just because occasionally I speak favourably of the dam
builders of this world, they forget that not only do they supply a dependable
water supply, they often supply tremendous recreational opportunities.
The
member is quite right, there is pressure and there has been some
development. My colleague would be the
first one to tell him, not enough. In
fact, there is a feeling in the area that there was a stronger commitment made
by the government of the day that I was part of that in lieu of the flooding,
in lieu of giving up some of the river bottom land, there would be more efforts
made by government and others to encourage tourism development and recreational
facilities in and around the newly formed Lake of the Prairies.
(Mr. Ben Sveinson, Acting Chairperson, in
the Chair)
First and foremost, and we have pretty rigid
regulations, it is a flood control facility, and we operate it that way. We draw down that lake whether or not there
is public outcry or pressure in the Roblin‑Russell area or not. We draw it down every late fall and early
winter to put the dam in readiness to impound the coming spring runoff, which then
delays it coming down the Assiniboine River so that we can stagger the crests
between the Red and the Assiniboine and prevent the kind of disastrous 1950‑type
flood scenarios.
What I would like to further add, I am very
anxious to proceed with the development of a management committee for the
management of the reservoir and its impact on down the river. I have asked for nominations and I have
received from all the communities, from the City of
Mr.
Acting Chairperson, I do not second guess my officials. They had a
responsibility to ensure that the primary objective of the dam would be
fulfilled, that is flood protection.
Perhaps with the 22 years of experience, we may find out that we do not
have to draw down the lake to the full 12‑foot or 14‑foot level.
Maybe drawing it down to the eight‑foot level still affords an acceptable
level of flood protection. Maybe
expending of some additional resources in fine‑tuning our weather
information, which is very important as we try to determine what the nature of
the runoff will be, although that is not a science, it is a little hard to
predict.
I
know as a farmer myself, you sometimes look in March or in late February and
say, oh, we are going to have a lot of water standing around our low spots in
our land, look at all the snow we have.
It depends on the melt. It
depends on the previous fall as to how much of that actually translates into
runoff.
* (2240)
To
have better input on the part of all stakeholders in the basin, that includes
those who are primarily interested in using the basin for recreational purposes
so that there is advance warning time given when water levels are in fact moved
upward or downward, to have input into the legitimate needs of potential users,
whether it is irrigators or whether it is municipal corporations like Portage
la Prairie or Brandon or Manitoba Hydro at the thermal plant, whether it is
acknowledging, of course, the ongoing legitimate requests for the City of Winnipeg
to ensure that an acceptable flow of water is maintained for their purposes,
that committee will be a pretty responsible and effective means of ensuring
that these concerns are passed on directly to the senior engineers who have the
responsibility of operating the structure.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it is encouraging to
hear the minister say that first and foremost that reservoir is there for water
management purposes and to manage the water supply in the
I
am sure that the Minister for Rural Development (Mr. Derkach) is keenly
interested in this. I recall newspaper
articles not so long ago up in his neck of the woods making very strong
comments about this project as well in terms of the availability of that water
to supplement the
Mr.
Acting Chairperson, getting back to the question I raised about the federal
involvement in this, I just want to say to the minister that I believe that
increasingly it will become clear that his level of frustration‑‑and
he shows it on a regular basis in the House‑‑which is shared by
many about the environmental assessment process and the unpredictability of
that process and some of the ways that adversaries, people who are opposed to
projects, can essentially delay and delay and frustrate the efforts of
proponents of perhaps a very worthwhile project.
Those frustrations are understood by me and
are real and are also understood by many in the business community, companies
that have proposals that require environmental approval, and that in my assessment
the environmental review process, while philosophically well grounded in terms
of being sure that we understand the environmental impacts before embarking
upon construction, suffers from procedural flaws currently and is a bit of
mishmash, to put it succinctly. It is an
area of shared jurisdiction that causes some problems.
It
does not help that the two levels of government do not seem to talk to each
other very much. There are lots of
overlapping laws and regulations. They conflict
and confuse anybody wanting to actually get something done more often than
not. That is why I have recommended for
a long time that there be national standards, national conferences, that the
provinces and the federal government sit down and get together and work towards
a standard approach to these things so that the road map is at least there and
so that anybody who is a proponent has some sense and a better sense of what is
required before they get approval to go ahead.
I think that would be a very productive thing, both for governments and
for businesses who want to propose these projects.
So
I understand the frustration and I sympathize with it. However, applying that
to this project, I think it was a big mistake for the Department of Natural
Resources and the Department of Environment to throw up their hands and say,
well, if the federal government wants in, they will come in. The federal government will not come in. It is going to cost them money. They have to be asked to come in.
The
provincial government has to go to them and say, look, we are doing this
project. It obviously impacts on federal
areas of jurisdiction. You have two
choices. We can get together and do a
joint review, as we now have enabling legislation to do, and we can do it
once. Or we will do our review, and if
the opponents of the project do not like it, they will go to court, they will
force you to do your review. They will
win. They will force the federal
government through the EARP Guidelines and the other laws that are there into
the process.
We
will do a second review and maybe the result will be different and it will be
confusing. It will be delayed another
two years. It is craziness. That is why we supported, I supported, moving
towards joint review panels. It makes
sense. It is a joint area of jurisdiction.
We should do one review, not two.
I
do not know if the minister wants to respond to that or not. I put that on the record because that is why
I asked the question about the federal review.
There should be one review done on these. I think it is a massive waste of time and
money to allow anybody, any opponent of project to give them that leverage to
trigger two review processes. There
should be one. It should be joint. I
think it was a mistake not to take‑‑you cannot force them‑‑but
not to take some role of an advocate in saying to the federal government, join
us in a joint review. It will be
cheaper, it will be quicker, and we will get a better more credible result.
I
leave that with the minister. I think
that was a mistake on the Minister of Environment's (Mr. Cummings) part not to
take that role. He took it in
Conawapa. The Minister of Environment
very clearly went and negotiated with the federal government for a joint review
panel. In things like this, where it is
clear that it affects, impacts federal jurisdiction, I think it is an astute
move, on behalf of the taxpayer and the proponent, to give the proponent just
one set of hearings.
Anyway those are my comments.
Mr. Enns: I appreciate and share to come extent some of
the comments made by the honourable member for St. James.
Just let me put a few things on the
record. It has to be borne in mind,
despite what the honourable member may want to conjecture otherwise, we are not
the proponents of this project. We are not doing this project. If asked we will‑‑as PFRA the
federal agency has been asked from Day One to offer and provide and indeed, as
is part of their mandate, when a municipality, when a town, when a farmer comes
up to PFRA and says, look, I have 200 head of livestock and I need water
supply, they will help with recommending whether it is going to be a dugout or
a well or whatever.
If
it is a local town, if the municipality asks the governments to assist them in
finding a water supply, in the provincial scene it will be the Manitoba Water
Services Board, in the federal scene it will be PFRA that will assist the
community in developing a water source.
That is what our departments are there for.
The
issue is, as to who is the responsible‑‑in the case that he cites,
Conawapa, that was clearly our project and related Crown corporations, the
Manitoba Hydro's projects. The
proponents asked for a joint federal‑provincial one‑shop
environmental process hearings.
My
information is, and PFRA and the federal government will have to answer to it,
the way the federal environmental system works is that in this instance PFRA,
as the lead agency, makes that decision whether or not the implication of this
project has implications that would involve the federal environment process. My
information that the federal government, PFRA, believes that they do not, that
it is merely a water allocation problem and totally entirely within the
jurisdiction of the
I
am certainly going to sit back and be totally satisfied before I advise my
Premier (Mr. Filmon), my Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings), my government
to commit themselves to a project, even towards the licensing of the project
prior to having these very same questions that the minister puts on the record
answered, because if we have learned something from the problems of our sister
province with respect to the Rafferty project and the difficulties that that
government got themselves into, environmentally speaking, with the federal
government is that they proceeded, having believed that they had done their
thing provincially, only then to be checked up federally and get involved in
court procedures and work stoppages when the project was halfway underway. We have certainly no intention of proceeding
down that path.
* (2250)
There will have to be, and there will be, a
full and complete acknowledgement of what I am putting on the record by the
federal government before anything further proceeds with respect to this
project, should there be a favourable response to the proponents by our Clean
Environment Commission. I might also say
if there is not a favourable response by the Clean Environment Commission, then
this project is dead.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 3. Resource Programs (a) Water Resources
(1) Administration (a) Salaries $462,100‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $459,900‑‑pass; (c) Grant Assistance $25,000‑‑pass.
3.(a)(2) Water Licensing and Approvals (a)
Salaries $457,800‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $31,400‑‑pass.
3.(a)(3) Water Management (a) Salaries
$1,413,400‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $116,600‑‑pass;
(c) Waterway Maintenance $3,706,500‑‑pass; (d) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($55,000)‑‑pass.
Mr.
Edwards: We are on 3.(d) Forestry. Is that where we are?
The
Acting Chairperson (Mr. Sveinson): 3.(d)
Recoverable from Other Expenditures, Water Management. Are you on page 119?
I
will go just as fast as I can.
3.(a)(4) Hydrotechnical Services (a) Salaries
$1,159,900‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $365,400‑‑pass;
(c) Canada‑Manitoba Agreement for Water Quantity Surveys $540,000‑‑pass.
3.(b) Parks and Natural Areas (1)
Administration (a) Salaries $510,400‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures
$403,300.
Mr.
Edwards: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I heard
the minister shout out that we are on Parks, so that is what I am gathering we
are talking about. Can the minister
indicate how many logging permits there currently are issued current in
Mr. Enns: I am advised that we will confirm that for him
in a few minutes. My forestry director
is just going to come and join us‑‑Parks Director should be coming
down I guess. Gordon, why do you not
come down and join us for a bit?
We
will take that question under advisement at this particular time with a
commitment to make that information available.
I know, just generally speaking, and allow me to introduce our Director
of Parks, Mr. Gordon Prouse, who has just joined us, that we have, as the
members are aware, there is certainly some woodcutting activity taking place in
the Duck Mountain Provincial Park and there is some taking place at Nopiming
with the Abitibi‑Price people, as well there is some cutting taking place,
I believe, in the Whiteshell. As to the
exact number of individual licensees or permits, I would ask the Parks Director
to take that question as notice, and we will try to furnish him that
information very shortly. In fact, it
may be coming up very quickly.
Let
me give it to the honourable member this way:
3 percent of the forest land base in the
Allow me to also put on the record, because
this is often not thought about, I would be quite prepared to absolutely
abolish all logging and harvesting of any timber out of our provincial park
system, but I would, of course, revert the Duck Mountain Provincial Park back
to the original provincial forest reserve that it was, as well as places like
Nopiming, because in Manitoba we have a higher than average number of
provincial parks when compared to our sister jurisdictions, partly because of
the co‑operation between forestry and parks.
Forestry reserves were there first, though,
and it was an eminently common‑sense approach to say, look, when we
already had attractive land that was being partially serviced by resource roads
that accessed some fine cottaging or lake areas to superimpose a provincial
park on it, which is precisely what we did.
Now, 25, 30 years later, we want to move the
goal posts, and that is what people who are involved in the forestry industry‑‑and
I remind honourable members of the committee it is a significant industry,
employing some 10,000 people in the province of Manitoba, yields in excess of
$400 million, very comparable to agriculture.
So let us not treat this subject too lightly, but I appreciate that I
will soon embark in this whole debate when we get to Bill 41, and my
understanding is that there are a number of Manitobans and organizations, in
excess of 100. I have the feeling that they are not all there to applaud my
visionary approach to new parks land legislation, although I suspect there will
be some that will recognize that‑‑
An Honourable Member: There are 171 submissions.
Mr. Enns: One hundred and seventy‑one
submissions? Okay.
Mr. Edwards: It is very interesting to hear the
percentages. I wonder if the minister
could undertake to provide the number of permits and their locations, what
parks they are located in, not specific locations but what park they are in and
the number of hectares that are covered.
* (2300)
Mr. Enns: I will ask the Parks director to make note of
that, and I will undertake to have this information available to the honourable
member within a reasonable amount of time, certainly in time for our
deliberations on Bill 41.
Mr. Edwards: I just wonder also if we could perhaps get a
list of the mining licences within provincial parks, if that is available, and
their location.
Mr. Enns: Yes, I will ask my colleagues in the
Department of Energy and Mines to provide me with similar information.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Acting Chair, I am going to stop with
those questions. I wanted to say just
generally that again I wanted to reiterate my great concern over many, many
areas here and regret that we are not going to get to them in some detail. I appreciate the staff have had to come down,
others who will not be used. We
appreciate that. It is not a system that
serves our schedules particularly well either, but this is the system we have,
so I do appreciate the difficulty in timing for the many staff involved. I appreciate them coming down and their
indulgence.
I
also want to say that I did not get a chance at the outset, but wanted to say
that I appreciate this minister's availability for questions and, more than
almost any minister certainly that I am responsible for in terms of critic
role, his frankness in the House. I
appreciate that. I think it lands him in
some trouble sometimes. He sometimes
brings a louder, more vociferous response, but I think it is good, and I
appreciate the fact that he is very frank and honest in the way he feels. That is an appropriate way to be.
(Madam Chairperson in the Chair)
I
certainly do not agree with many of the things that he is doing or will do and
that is part of my role, but also I think he understands, and in many ways I am
sure predicts that. I, too, look forward
to the hearings, all 171 or so presenters.
I am sure there will be some in his favour. I look forward to hearing them all. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Enns: The honourable member has twice now indicated
his regret about the system not providing sufficient time to do full justice to
this Department of Natural Resources because, as he put it, other departments,
higher up in the ladder, get more time.
Well, the Department of Natural Resources is right at the top of the
ladder and I want him to know that. It
is the most important department of this government, Madam Chairperson.
It
is the opposition that decides to spend 70 hours on one department, or 65 hours
on another department, or 30 hours on another department, and then finds it
only has two hours or an hour and a half for the Department of Natural
Resources. So that is in the hands of
the opposition; it is not in the hands of the government. There are 240 hours that you could divide up,
10 hours per department, and then you would have had that sufficient time. Right?
Some Honourable Member: Right on, Harry.
Mr. Edwards: I cannot let that statement go
unchallenged. I appreciate what the
minister is saying. I think he also has
to understand that many in the community would feel that those departments that
had 60 or 70 hours were underdiscussed.
The question then becomes one of how much time should we spend overall
for the whole process.
That is a question that all three parties have
had some discussion on, and I dare say that I do not believe it is the
government's desire, and maybe the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Enns) is
changing that. I have never heard the
government say that they wanted more than 240 hours overall. Perhaps that is what he is saying. Perhaps what he is saying is that if we are
going to give these things full discussion, we need far more than that.
What I am saying is that the reality is that
some departments each year do not get tested perhaps as much as they should.
However, Madam Chair, there have been other years, I am happy to say, where we
have had far more time, and I look forward to having far more time next
year. This system is not perfect, but I
think over the long term, it gets the job done.
Madam Chairperson: 3.(b)(c) Grant Assistance $131,500‑‑pass.
3.(b)(2) Management and Development (a)
Salaries $527,600‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $165,100‑‑pass.
3.(b)(3) Program Services (a) Salaries
$188,200‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $57,000‑‑pass.
3.(b)(4) Park Operations and Maintenance (a)
Salaries $8,562,400‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $2,771,900‑‑pass.
3.(b)(5) Visitor Services (a) Salaries $317,100‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $57,300‑‑pass.
3.(c) Lands (1) Administration (a) Salaries
$184,100‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $136,500‑‑pass.
3.(c)(2) Crown Lands Administration (a)
Salaries $601,500‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $132,700‑‑pass.
3.(c)(3) Crown Lands Registry (a) Salaries
$251,100‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $177,100‑‑pass.
3.(d) Forestry (1) Administration (a) Salaries
$590,000‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $316,300‑‑pass;
(c) Grant Assistance $23,400‑‑pass.
3.(d)(2)
3.(d)(3) Silviculture (a) Salaries $674,700‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $2,026,700‑‑pass.
3.(d)(4)
3.(d)(5) Canada‑Manitoba Partnership
Agreement in Forestry $2,714,300‑‑pass.
3.(e) Fisheries (1) Administration (a)
Salaries $202,600‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $182,200‑‑pass;
(c) Grant Assistance zero‑‑pass.
3.(e)(2) Fish Culture (a) Salaries $571,500‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $236,000‑‑pass.
(3)
Fisheries Habitat Management (a) Salaries $291,300‑‑pass; (b) Other
Expenditures $69,800‑‑pass.
3.(e)(4) Sport and Commercial Fishing
Management (a) Salaries $408,000‑‑pass (b) Other Expenditures
$80,500‑‑pass.
3.(e)(5) Northern Fishermen's Freight
Assistance $250,000‑‑pass.
3.(e)(6) Fisheries Enhancement Initiative
$200,000‑‑pass.
3.(f) Wildlife (1) Administration (a) Salaries
$244,800‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $285,700‑‑pass;
(c) Grant Assistance $173,500‑‑pass.
3.(f)(2) Game Management (a) Salaries $269,500‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $126,400‑‑pass.
3.(f)(3) Habitat Management (a) Salaries
$509,300‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $333,500‑‑pass;
(c) Canada‑Manitoba Soil Conservation Agreement $516,000‑‑pass.
3.(f)(4) Endangered Species and Nongame
Management (a) Salaries $423,600‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures
$75,100‑‑pass.
3.(f)(5) Fur and Commercial Wildlife
Management (a) Salaries $525,100‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures
$271,900‑‑pass; (c) Grant Assistance $89,900‑‑pass.
3.(f)(6) Canada‑Manitoba Waterfowl
Damage Prevention Agreement $478,900‑‑pass.
3.(g) Policy Co‑ordination (1) Salaries
$743,100‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $130,700‑‑pass;
(3) Grant Assistance $17,200‑‑pass.
* (2310)
3.(h)(2) Field Surveys (a) Salaries $564,800‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $227,100‑‑pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($301,600)‑‑pass.
3.(h)(3) Remote Sensing (a) Salaries $379,600‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $114,200‑‑pass; (c) Less: Recoverable from Other Appropriations
($23,700)‑‑pass.
3.(h)(4) Distribution Centre (a) Salaries $
319,100‑‑pass; (b) Other Expenditures $264,100‑‑pass;
(c) Less: Recoverable from Other
Appropriations ($165,200)‑‑pass.
3.(h)(5) Data Management (a) Salaries $607,800‑‑pass;
(b) Other Expenditures $162,100‑‑pass.
3.(j) Sustainable Development Co‑ordination
Unit $208,000‑‑pass.
3.(k) Habitat Enhancement Fund $50,000‑‑pass.
3.(m) Conservation Data Centre $100,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 12.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $43,211,200 for Natural Resources, Resource Programs, for
the fiscal year ending 31st day of March, 1994.
Item 4. Capital Appropriations, Expenditures Related
to Capital (a) Equipment and Infrastructure $400,600‑‑pass; (b)
Water Projects $2,265,400‑‑pass; (c) Park Facilities $2,777,300‑‑pass.
Resolution 12.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $5,443,300 for Natural Resources, Expenditures Related to
Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1994.
Item 5. Lotteries Funded Programs (a) Special
Conservation and Endangered Species Fund $450,000‑‑pass.
Resolution 12.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $450,000 for Natural Resources, Lotteries Funded Programs,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st of March, 1994.
At
this time I would request that the minister's staff please leave the Chamber.
1.
Administration and Finance (a) Minister's Salary $20,600‑‑pass.
Resolution 12.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $4,183,800 for Natural Resources, Administration and
Finance, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Natural Resources.
FINANCE
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please.
This section of the Committee of Supply will now consider the Estimates
for the Department of Finance.
Does the honourable minister wish to make an
opening statement?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Finance): No, Madam Chair, I
will not, other than to say that this line or this department of government, as
will be seen when I table the 1992‑93 unaudited fourth quarter, which I
plan to do sometime in the next two weeks, will show that this department of
government is the fastest growing in percentage terms of any department of
government. That is purely as a result
of interest costs on the accumulated debt, for the most part accumulated during
the period 1981 to 1988.
So,
Madam Chair, I look forward to the few minutes that we have available to
dialogue on this and many other issues.
Those are my opening remarks.
Thank you.
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the official opposition
wish to make an opening statement?
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): Madam Chairperson, very briefly, because we
have less than an hour, I understand, probably 55 minutes or something of that
order. That obviously does not give us
enough time to do justice to this department.
An Honourable Member: . . . blame it on anybody.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I am not saying whose fault it is. It is just a matter of fact.
It
is an important department, but I would note, Madam Chairperson, that in spite
of the efforts of the minister and the pronouncements, that we continue to
build the debt of
Madam Chairperson, the point is that whatever
the deficit is, the fact remains that the total debt of the
* (2320)
So
in spite of the pronouncements of the minister, we still have a growing
debt. I do not know how the minister
judges his success rate, but if he looks at that as a figure for success, I am
afraid he has not been very successful.
The
fact is, what I find is that‑‑I do not think the minister will
disagree with this‑‑the reason he is having deficit problems is
because there is no growth in the economy, there is no revenue, insufficient
revenues are coming in. There is no
growth in the revenues in various categories, and that of course is a
reflection of the weak economic situation that we have, and it is a reflection
of the fact that
So,
again, we could have a lot more to say about this, but rather than debate,
which I know the minister can wax eloquently as well, we would like to ask some
specific questions. Rather than going
line by line, I imagine the most efficient procedure is just to discuss this
under Minister's Salary or this first item and then pass the other items
towards the end.
So
if I could then, Madam Chairperson, I wonder if the minister could give us some
breakdown of the debt of the
Point of
Order
Mr. Leonard Evans: I am sorry.
On a point of order then, did the minister wish to bring his staff in now
to answer some of the questions?
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I apologize, I am sorry. The representative of the third party is
there large as life and obviously he wants to make an opening statement, so we
will give him a chance.
* * *
Madam Chairperson: Does the critic for the second opposition
party wish to make an opening statement.
Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Madam Chairperson, I realize that I am in
camouflage tonight and a little hard to see in this room, but actually I was
just going to make a suggestion. There
are two things that I think, given the shortness of the time available to us,
we are not likely to get through the department on a line‑by‑line
basis and there are some macro questions that are of interest here.
I
would like to hear from the minister in some detail about the debt problem and
why, with dropping interest rates, we are still seeing the rate of growth. I would be interested in hearing from the
minister about the difficulty he is having meeting his own objectives in
getting this debt under control and seeing it diminish in real terms.
Whether we need staff for that, maybe the
staff could go home. They could
certainly go home as far as I am concerned.
We do not need to keep them here tonight for the kind of discussion that
I would like to have. I do not think
there is the time to do justice to a line‑by‑line review of the
Estimates.
An Honourable Member: Take the rest of the day off.
Mr. Manness: Well, Madam Chairperson, that is a fair offer
by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) and indeed if that is the general
discussion that the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) wants,
certainly I will ask the staff to retire for the evening. Let me say though that if the member for
Brandon East wants some specific questions put, then I will bring my staff
in. So I will let him call the decision
in that respect.
Madam Chairperson: What is the will of the committee?
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, I have some specific
questions, although maybe the minister can take them as notice and provide them
later in writing or maybe he can even comment on them. Like, just to give you one example, I was
wondering if we could get a breakdown of the debt as of say March 31, 1993‑‑I
assume that should be ready‑‑by purpose and by currency. That has been provided in the past.
Whether the minister can just take that as
notice and provide it later, or maybe he would like to comment on what is
happening as well.
Madam Chairperson: What is the will of the committee?
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, I would suggest we bring staff in
and when the member throws his specific questions, it will give them a time and
I will get it done. Otherwise, with this
time and the pressures we will get done.
They are here; they have been waiting a long time and I think would
enjoy coming in.
Madam Chairperson: Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber?
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, I look forward to the questions
on a macro vein that may be put forward by the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock).
Let
me say though, in response to the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans),
it is very interesting. Tonight I had
dinner with our main securities firm in
I
want to share something with the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans). When I asked him about the
Japanese economy, this is what he had to say.
He said, our Prime Minister, former Prime Minister is projecting growth
of 3 percent in real terms, but we have a problem. We have two problems. One, employment rates,
unemployment rates are increasing significantly. He said there are two years of graduates now
from university that do not have jobs because of the tremendous change in the
form of the new productivity age and how it has manifested in economic growth.
Secondly, we have another problem. The next problem he says we have in
So
when I look at my problems, which indeed are the problems of a million people,
which are real, and I acknowledge how real they are, and I will get into greater
depth on it when I answer more fully some of the other questions, I say, it is
not unique. It is not in isolation from what is happening not only in
So
the member is going to be unsuccessful if he is going to try and lay a guilt
trip on me, because I will not fall for it. People much more astute and much
more knowledgeable about business cycles and the definition of what we are in
right now, not in any way theoretically dealt with in any of the texts that I
have studied, I am in good company in some respect because it is being felt
throughout the western world.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Madam Chairperson, I do not disagree with the
observations in that respect of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Manness). There are some very basic structural changes
occurring in the major industrialized countries of the world and, obviously,
But
it seems to me that the governments and I think the G‑7 leaders recognize
this, have to grapple, have to tackle the question of this chronic
unemployment. It is just not good enough
for
So
there is a major problem there and governments have to address it. I am not going to pretend that I have the
magical answers, nor I presume does the Minister of Finance. But the fact is that it is a problem, and
governments are going to have to address the question of chronic unemployment,
and the parallel of course is chronic underutilization of its industrial
capacity. I am glad to see that the G‑7
leaders have indicated that that is their No. 1 priority. That is, they want to pay attention to
unemployment and somehow or other stimulate their economies to create jobs.
I
note also that
Mr. Manness: I will wait for the next question. I have a response to his first question.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I was referring to the interjection from the back
there, Madam Chairperson.
Just to go back then, getting away from the
general theme here or the opening statement, I wanted to ask some specific
questions, and I will repeat, because the staff are now here, whether it will
be possible to get a breakdown of this debt which has grown, by purpose and by
currency, as of March 31, 1993.
I
know the minister had made some effort, and there had been some change in
respect to the holding of the debt in various currencies. I believe the policy was to maximize Canadian
currency and minimize offshore debt. I
just wondered if that information is available, and I think we had a similar
table presented to us a year or two ago.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, I have numbers that are pretty
much preliminary at this point in time with respect to March 31, 1993. I am reluctant to use them because we are a
little troubled with them. Actually,
they show at this point the debt of the province as of March 31, '93 dropping
from '92. I can explain a good portion
of the way because we did an awful lot of preborrowing in '92, going into the
'93 year, but still I am a little troubled with the numbers, and therefore I
would request that I not provide the numbers.
The
last published number after sinking fund was roughly $13.2 billion net, direct
and guaranteed. That is the Crown's and
the general purpose debt. The number, if
I were to publish today, would be somewhat significantly lower than that. It is one of the reasons, of course, why the
rating agencies are so impressed with our numbers, but we again want to give a
final check.
An Honourable Member: But you are not.
Mr. Manness: Well, I want to give a final check to these
numbers and have a fuller explanation, because I cannot believe, when you are
running a deficit not of $862 million, $560‑some million higher, that you
can have a total debt that is lower.
* (2330)
Let
me say with respect to the breakout roughly, again using the same base of
numbers, if indeed the gross debt before sinking fund is somewhere in the area of
$14.8 billion, $14.6 billion, that is gross before sinking fund. Of that total, roughly $5.8 billion, $5.9
billion is American denominated. So
roughly around 38 percent, 40 percent, and the rest is all Canadian.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Is that breakdown much different from last
year in terms of Canadian versus U.S. dollars versus other dollars?
Mr. Manness: The percentage terms would not be too much
different. Certainly the amount of
Mr. Leonard Evans: Perhaps the minister could undertake at some
point at some future time when the data is firmed up, is available, that he
could perhaps send us a memo or a letter just giving us the numbers. We did get one, I recall, two years ago for
sure we got an estimate from yourself, from the department. Actually it was
from the director of capital finance, Treasury Division to yourself and you
gave us a copy. That was in July of '91
so‑‑
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, all of that detail will be in
the unaudited fourth quarterly report.
Mr. Leonard Evans: It will be in the fourth?
Mr. Manness: Yes, a break‑out by denomination and
also by the general purpose versus Crown.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just to carry on then, could the minister
indicate or provide us with some sort of an update on the sales of
Mr. Manness: We did $340 million with $50 million of that,
approximately, rollover. In other words,
$290 million net new, $50 million coming out of Series II.
Last year, we did $470 million with $160
million coming out of Series I, another $290 million difference. So we are basically, I guess, if we are
learning anything from this that basically there is $275 million to $300
million of new money every year coming into these saving vehicles. We are most impressed.
Manitobans, obviously, are happy with the
vehicle, and everybody I speak to seems to be proud to the extent that they
have an opportunity to invest within our province.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, I am sure that may be true, but it is
also a function of the rate of interest.
It depends on what you are offering by way of interest rate and, of
course, what the competitive rates are with other types of securities. Just to refresh my memory, what is the rate
of interest?
Mr. Manness: It is 6 percent. The markets might suggest that we paid maybe
a quarter of a percent over. That was a
judgment call. I feel no guilt at having
paid 6 percent. I do know that in
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just to carry on into the area of taxation, I
note that in looking at the Estimates of revenue that the payroll tax is still
with us, and of course it is referred to in the budget document as well.
On
page 5 of your Estimates, Supplementary Information for Legislative Review, I
note that the estimate is down slightly. This is the Levy for Health and
Education is down slightly from '92‑93 where it was $191.8 million. This year it is estimated to be $190.8
million.
What I observe, Madam Chairperson, is that
this is a very significant amount of revenue and I do not see it disappearing.
I want to remind the minister that he, when he was on this side of the House,
and I believe his Leader as well, indicated that his government would totally
eliminate this levy. I predicted four
years ago that this would never happen because it was too important a type of
revenue for the government to let go, considering all of our fiscal situation.
So
is the minister prepared to say now that the government has abandoned the
objective of eliminating the Levy for Health and Education?
Mr. Manness: That was one of our primary planks when we
came into government. Within the very limited
ability that we have had to maneuver, we have still always tried to address
some percentage of that room towards reducing the payroll tax and will continue
to do so.
When the member said years ago that we would
not eliminate it, wisely so he did not, but I wish he had put conditions to
it. I wish he would have said, you will
not reduce it if your rate of revenue growth is negative or around zero or 1 or
2 percent, something that he never experienced in all the years he was in
government. If he had put those
conditions with it, I would say then he was a great soothsayer, he had great
insight into the future. But because he
did not put conditions with it, I say, I do not give him as much credit as I
otherwise might.
Mr. Leonard Evans: So the minister is saying the objective of
the government is still to eliminate this tax.
Having listened to him, I would observe that at the rate we are going,
we will be well into the 21st Century, maybe the 22nd Century, and that tax
will still be here.
At
any rate, I would just observe that other provinces have this type of tax, it
may be called something else, but they indeed have that tax and it has become
an important source of revenue. Given
the fact that governments are having difficulties in raising sufficient
revenues, I for the life of me cannot see this particular tax disappearing from
the scene.
I
guess there is a table comparing the provinces.
I note that
Just on another topic on revenue, Retail Sales
Tax. I am just wondering whether that is
more or less on target. I believe, I
will have to check my figures here, but I believe the Estimates for Retail
Sales Tax showed some increase from, I believe, $581 million to the estimate of
$630.4 million in the 1993 budget document.
So I was wondering whether the minister could comment on whether his
department, whether the government was on target in receipt of sales tax
revenues.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, maybe the member can nod to
me. Is he talking about in‑year present '93‑94, or is he talking
about old‑year reconciliation with budget?
I
can tell him as far as our first quarter numbers for '93‑94, that we are
pretty well right on forecast, but not an awful lot different than the Housing
numbers that came out today. We had
encouraging numbers for May, and then we had some fall off in June. But for the first three months within the
fiscal year, we are right on forecast.
As far as last year, we are within 1 percent of the forecast.
Mr. Leonard Evans: So we could look forward then to retail sales
tax revenues of around $630 million.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, we can if the next nine months
hold or grow. Of course, everybody knows
what is hanging in the cards. It is whether the
* (2340)
Mr. Leonard Evans: I notice the minister has also lowered his
Estimates of Corporation Capital Tax. I
am looking at the budget document. You
are anticipating $76 million versus $80.7 million in last year's budget. I was wondering if you could just give us
some explanation for‑‑I mean, I can guess at why it may be lower,
but I wondered if the minister would like to comment on why he lowered his
estimates of that particular tax revenue.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, this in our view is a closer
reflection of the status in '92‑93.
I mean, I am glad the member asked the question on this particular
line. I mean, it is the NDP that says,
make the corporations pay more. This is
the great mythology, and they are going to get caught in their own rhetoric.
The
reality is that corporations are slowly dying off, and they will tell you
almost to the person that one of the main reasons is in high taxes. This is a fixed charge. It has no reference, no reference whatsoever
to profitability, and there is no doubt that the corporate base is experiencing
a shrinkage. Unfortunately, it is being reflected in part by this reduced
number.
I
would point out that there is also the new payment process. Last year we garnered a little bit more
because of the new payment process, and this year we no longer will have it.
Everybody is on tee, I think. We got
some extra payments last year.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Is the minister then saying what, I guess, we
have said for the last couple of years on this side, and that is there has been
a shrinkage of our industrial base? We
know of specific companies that have left
Mr. Manness: Madam Chair, no. For the greater part of it, this reflects
technical changes. I talked about the
advance payment that increased the base, in terms of '92‑93 and therefore
we are working off a higher base.
Secondly, there are the refunds. There is going to be a larger number of
refunds that we are going to have to approach this year in terms of '92‑93. Those are the technical reasons basically for
$4 million. The question he is asking,
you note, is he sensed that our industrial base is shrinking. It is certainly changing. It is changing significantly, and there is no
doubt it is very hard to measure.
I
mean, these are always hard to measure.
We have good improvement in some areas.
We have reduction in others. We
look at the various sectors. We look at
the various employment make‑up within the sectors and you see significant
changes. I mean, the adoption of the
newest technology is adding productivity, adding value, but certainly the
profitability associated with that is not in keeping with what it has been in
the past.
Secondly, when we look at the corporate
capital tax, I mean, machinery is being brought in now and systems are being
designed now which even though in some cases have a higher per unit cost, not
in production but indeed in the base machinery‑‑there are some
other processes coming in where even the machinery is lower value, and of
course that is what we are taxing. We
are taxing the machinery and indeed the borrowings and the debt, and so it is
pretty hard to do a quantification of all those factors, because many of them
are working at different directions.
Point of
Order
Mr. Alcock: I was just going to ask, given the lateness
of the time, whether or not the member for
Mr. Leonard Evans: I appreciate we are limited in time. So I have two or three‑‑well, I
have a lot more questions, but I will ask just two or three more and then yield
the floor to the member for Osborne.
Just carrying on on the revenue side for a
moment. Tobacco tax I see is down in
estimated collections from 128.7 to 123.3. This is the estimate. Has there been any serious revision of that
based on the fact that the government has now decided to tax raw leaf tobacco?
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, when this number came in
from the department when we were budgeting I unilaterally dropped it, very
concerned as I looked around and surveyed the landscape in other provinces. At this point in time, with the knowledge of
three months we are actually right on, actually a little ahead in the
collection as to forecast but, you know, I am mindful of many of the events
that are swirling within this area, and we will know in due course whether or
not we can hold this number.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I am having difficulty in hearing the
minister because of conversations that are going on on the other side. I will try and listen on this, and I cannot
hear on this either. So I do not want to
ask the‑‑
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. I wonder if I might ask the members to carry
on their private conversations in the loge or outside the Chamber. The honourable member for Brandon East has
indicated he is experiencing difficulty hearing the minister's responses.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Well, on the matter of tobacco tax, as the
minister knows, there has been, the distributors or retailers of the raw leaf
tobacco are upset about an imposition of tax on the raw leaf, and I appreciate
the minister giving us the analysis comparing the tax on raw leaf tobacco with
refined tobacco, indicating that it indeed is lower. Apparently, the group involved,
representatives of the raw leaf tobacco distributors believe that the tax is
still too high and that it is going to drive them out of business.
I
just wondered whether the minister was prepared to meet with this group or
whether he has perhaps met with the group to learn of their concerns, because
they state categorically, even though the rate seems to be favourable vis‑a‑vis
the refined product, that it is still going to drive them out of business.
Therefore, they maintain it would hurt a lot of low‑income people who are
now using the raw leaf as compared with the refined tobacco. I am a real expert on this; I have never
smoked one cigarette in my life. But
this is what they tell me.
Mr. Manness: Well, Madam Chair, as I was saying earlier on
today, I guess I am an expert in smoking.
I took up smoking in Grade 8 for half an hour, and gave it up in Grade 8
half an hour later.
So
I do not know whether I am any more of an expert or not than the member from
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), but I can indicate that, as probably the only
province in
Because I bought part of their argument. Not that I want to see an industry,
fledgling, grow into something else, based on tobacco, I mean I just do not
have time for that. But in the sense
that some of them had been induced into coming into that industry and on the
belief that they were going to profit, I provided for a differential, but it
will stay at this level. It will not
change, certainly not downward.
In
due course the differential may totally be removed, but I will not increase the
differential at this point.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just a couple of questions, and then I will
turn it over to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock). Could the minister comment on to what degree
has provincial sales tax been brought into line with the GST? I know there is an agreement with the federal
government and in the last budget there was a large list of items that were now
to be taxed provincially.
* (2350)
I
understand that it was more or less covering those items covered by the
GST. So could the minister comment on to
what degree then we have more or less harmonized‑‑if I can use that
term‑‑or co‑ordinated tax levies with the GST?
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, I think the budget in the
taxation adjustment section certainly spells out probably better than I can
specifically those areas that are still exempted. Again, books, children's
clothing and footwear items under $100, prescription drugs, home heating and
personal services remain exempt. That is
not the case under the GST.
So
the goods area that is different as between the GST and our provincial sales
tax falls into basically those four or five areas. I mean when we went into this, it was purely
because we wanted the federal government to collect our tax at the border.
They insisted that it would be this way or no
way. As a matter of fact, there was a
Well, the federal government totally rejected
that. Ultimately you have to make decisions.
We made the decisions in support of our retailers, in support of trying
to maintain our economy, that those of our citizens who felt that they could
escape tax by purchasing outside of our borders would ultimately have to make
the same contribution to health and to education as those who stayed home and
purchased.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Obviously then, this extended provincial
sales tax is reflected in the Estimates of sales tax revenue, is that correct?
Mr. Manness: Yes.
Mr. Leonard Evans: This will therefore be one explanation for
the increase in the estimated revenue take for '93‑94?
Mr. Manness: To quantify that, yes, part year‑‑most
of the part mind you, roughly $40 million.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just one other area and then I will yield the
floor to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), and that is the area of
equalization. I notice that the estimated
amount is down considerably from the previous year. We are down to $970 million, as I read
it. I wondered if the minister would
care to comment on this level of estimate for equalization payments. I appreciate it can fluctuate for various
reasons, but I just wondered if the minister had any words of wisdom about
this.
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, we are sailing some smooth
waters now. Not that I am happy,
particularly with the ocean that we are in, with this whole area of receiving
equalization. At least all of the uncertainty and the roughness that we went
through starting last November, basically for three months, November, December
and January, is over and so the numbers that the federal government have given
us, more or less, have been holding firm through February, March, April, May
and June. Again, the impact is certainly significantly down. In actual dollars, it reflects the census
adjustment, the '91 census and of course the under coverage, and we have been
into that methodology ad nauseam and the fact that the nation's wealth, the
economic pie to divide is shrinking.
Mr. Leonard Evans: That is fine.
I have other questions but I will yield to the member for Osborne.
Mr. Alcock: I thank the member for Brandon East. I have just two areas that I am sort of
interested in. One is that interest
rates have now fallen to I think their lowest level since 1967, and I am
wondering what impact that is having on what the Finance minister describes as
the fastest growing section of government. What has been the savings resulting
from that drop? Is it possible to effect
the payments this year as a result of this?
Mr. Manness: Madam Chairperson, let me say that certainly
it has helped but again I tell you we borrowed for the most part 10‑year
money, and there is a big fright right now.
This is why I have great difficulty particularly with NDP governments
who are saying to Governor Crow to crank down interest rates. I am sure if he wanted to more seriously, he
would. I think he will, but these are 90‑day
rates. I am sorry, I do not want any
more 90‑day money. I have got too
much 90‑day money as it is. The
market will dictate what happens to 10‑year money, certainly not Governor
Crow.
This is what I find so upsetting with the NDP
rhetoric. The money managers of the
pension funds and the insurance money managers of their portfolios will
ultimately decide. But, no, something
will decide before them, provincial governments and governments deciding
whether or not they are going to have deficits.
As long as the money managers believe that there is not the willpower
there to meaningfully address the deficits, the money managers are going to sit
there and say, well, the governments are coming our way and we are not going to
give pension money out at 6 percent for 10‑year money when we know that
they darn well will pay 8, 8.5, and if we hit the floor now, ultimately 9
percent.
I
do not care who is governing
So
I say to the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock), what is the net impact‑‑I
am sorry for getting carried away here in the shortness of time‑‑but
I am telling you that we are borrowing now money finally that has broken 8
percent. You know, we are buying
If
we were to come back to
Mr. Alcock: Well, then let me move‑‑actually,
the minister has, by way of introduction, moved into the area that I am perhaps
more interested in. I want to frame this
if I can in a way that is as removed from the normal rhetoric in this Chamber
as I possibly can, because I am interested in this. Maybe this is the last time that I will get a
chance to ask a question of this nature, but the minister just spoke about the
importance of the debt and deficit, and that is not a new topic for him. He talked about that when he was in
opposition. He has talked about that in
every one of the six budgets.
I
wonder if he could just explain a little bit the difficulty he has had in
realizing his goal. When he became
Minister of Finance for this province his objective was to get the debt or the
deficit under control and to zero. He
has never achieved that, and I am not holding him accountable, I am not blaming
him for it, because that has certainly been seen across a variety of other
provinces. But I wonder if he could just
explain what he has experienced as he has tried to get there.
Mr. Manness: Well, Madam Chair, great frustration. I do not have to indicate anything else for
the record, but let me say that when we came to government, we took a most
conservative approach on the revenue side.
We said, look, traditionally under the worst of circumstances, revenues
will grow by 5 percent per year, under the worst of circumstances. For four years we have been down below that,
and still though with having come through minority government, but still
learning the system so that when we came in with a majority government, right
on top.
I
mean, the minority government was a good learning experience. As soon as we came in with a majority
government, we knew the decisions had to be made, and we made a lot of those
decisions. I am here to tell you today,
if it had not been for last year, '92‑93, we were on the five‑year
course towards balancing the budget.
* (0000)
Mr. Leonard Evans: Why did you give up revenue in '88?
Mr. Manness: Well, the member can talk about revenue in
'88 all he wants‑‑
An Honourable Member: You are doing fine. Keep going.
Mr. Manness: ‑‑but the reality is I thought we
were on course. I mean because we were working at the margins. We were not slashing programs, but we were
definitely working on the margins and we were given an awful lot of credit
across
We
had gone into government and we had stripped out an awful lot in this
government. Still someone would say, you
have just scratched the surface; that is not true. We have gone a long way to taking out an
awful lot of the reduction and overlap and duplication. If there is some there, we will continue to
find it, but the reality is we were on course.
But when you fall away $250 million on the revenue side‑‑and
I will report the expenditures for last year, and we were right on‑‑but
when you fall away so much on the revenue side, in essence that becomes a
structural deficit of starting at $700 million basically this year. We have got quite a hit.
You
know, I do not know how bad the cost is of the
The
accounting systems are as good as you will find anywhere. There is nothing hidden. When I compare our number of $367 million
across the land‑‑I am sure, the member for Osborne (Mr. Alcock) has
done this‑‑it is a pretty fair reflection. That is why the rating agencies say, you
know, if you are not happy with it maybe you should have taken some revenue
options; but in spite of all that, you are there. So when we forecast four years from now being
balanced, they believe it.
They believe we can do it, but I am here to
tell you that the will power and the discipline that is going to have to be
practised over the next three years is acute, because there is no way I can
make a case, and I do not care where we are in the land, for revenue growth
again of 5 or 8 or 10 percent or double‑digit in the course of the next
two years. I cannot.
So
to answer the member, I am obviously very frustrated on one hand. On the other hand, as I do a comparative, I
think that we have made some of the very difficult decisions. Notwithstanding
the call, particularly from the NDP, to reinstitute almost all of it on a daily
basis, we have done what Manitobans have expected us to do.
Mr. Alcock: Certainly, I have no difficulty agreeing with
what the minister said. This is a
problem that is common to all provinces, and I think he is right. He has been pretty rigorous in attacking
it. What has to happen though? What has to happen with those four years in
order to get there? The minister made
the point that a lot has been stripped out now.
What gets him that final distance?
Mr. Manness: We are not far away‑‑1 percent on
$5.5 billion is $55 million. If we can
hold spending down like I said in the budget down to zero percent, minus one
for another year, zero after that for two years, we are there with even the
most conservative of revenue numbers.
Now, if the national economy just does not
come through, then all bets are off. I
say that very‑‑
Mr. Alcock: Well, that is the question. You made the comment about uncontrolled
costs, Family Services, the disaster stuff I think is still relatively small,
given the total amount of spending, and you made the comment also that you
stripped out the duplication. You have
made the major programatic savings that you can achieve and yet you are now
talking about holding to minus one and zero.
How realistic is that?
Mr. Manness: Well, it is realistic. I mean, we are in during that period. I will be saying to school boards, and saying
to municipalities and again with our public sector employees, saying look, we
brought a bill in. It has a two‑year
sunset. I mean, that was done by
design. The greatest tragedy of all of
this, and I agree wholeheartedly, is employment. People think I am driven by the deficit. I am not, but the reality is it is the only
solution I have seen.
I
mean, you talk to people around the world.
An Honourable Member: They got no help from
Mr. Manness: Well, they got no help from
Mr. Alcock: I mean, if anything, the situation in
You
are holding public sector wage increases to some 3.8 percent below what they
would have been this year, and if you follow through with Bill 22 and do it
next year, that may achieve your minus‑one target. But what happens when they rebound in the
third year? I mean, just coming back up
to what is today's level, does that not put tremendous pressure on you in that
second year out?
Mr. Manness: Well, Madam Chair, it will put pressure. How tremendous it is, the magnitude of it is
hard to say, but it will certainly put pressure on the Minister of Finance of
the day. There is no doubt about it. But
the government at that time will do what it has to do if it is serious about
attaining the goal.
The
whole nation is very much being watched in international money markets, I mean,
like you would not believe. We can talk
about the very impressive economic growth numbers, but beyond that, the level
of debt in this nation is being watched parlously by outside forces. Ultimately, we will be measured as to how we
bring around these deficits over the course of the next two years.
Mr. Leonard Evans: Just one comment. At a recent national meeting of public
accounts committees in
We had
a lengthy discussion on infrastructure and the responsibility of government to
ensure that there be adequate infrastructure put in place so that there could
be growth in the private sector or generally in the economy and that it is not
just a matter of looking at how much debt you have and how many deficits you
have. She made it very, very clear that
they want to see what else governments are doing, and they want to get a handle
on the nature of the economy, obviously, in that jurisdiction. It is not simply just a matter of maintaining
low debts, low deficits. They do not
object to that, obviously, but it is more than that. She gave us a case example of a jurisdiction
in an American state where they looked very carefully at what they were doing
with the infrastructure in that particular state.
We
have not got time to go into detail, but I am just saying, it is not a simple
matter of just looking at debts and deficits.
* (0010)
Mr. Manness: Well, Madam Chair, I know the time is late,
but be very careful. I listen to
Standard and Poors very carefully too, and they probably open up a little bit
more to me when behind the scenes, but what they did not say at that
conference, when they were supporting the infrastructure change, is that they
did not say publicly and I would never attempt to paraphrase, but they were
saying, get control of your social costs.
I have never heard members from that side ever say that.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please.
I am interrupting the proceedings of this section of the Committee of
Supply because the total time allowed for Estimates consideration has now
expired. Our Rule 64.1(1) provides in
part that not more than 240 hours shall be allowed for the consideration in
Committee of the Whole of Ways and Means and Supply resolutions respecting all
types of Estimates and of relevant Supply bills. Our Rule 64.1(3) provides that where the time
limit has expired, the Chairperson shall put forth all remaining questions
necessary to dispose of the matter and such questions shall not be subject to
debate, amendment or adjournment.
Therefore, I am going to call in sequence the
resolutions not yet adopted by this section of the Committee of Supply.
Resolution 7.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,588,600 for Finance, Administration and Finance, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,691,900 for Finance, Treasury, for the fiscal year ending
the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $4,046,100 for Finance, Comptroller, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $9,480,900 for Finance, Taxation, for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $1,498,000 for Finance, Federal‑Provincial Relations
and Research, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $236,800 for Finance, Insurance and Risk Management, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,945,700 for Finance, Treasury Board Secretariat, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution
7.8: RESOLVED that there be granted to
Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $188,000,000 for Finance, Tax Credit Payments,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 7.9: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $310,000 for Finance, Expenditures Related to Capital, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $489,000,000 for Finance, Public Debt (Statutory), for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994.
This is a statutory item and it is for information only.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Finance.
GOVERNMENT
SERVICES
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Resolution 8.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,415,200 for Government Services, Administration, for the
fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 8.2: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $93,714,300 for Government Services, Property Management,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 8.3: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $6,066,800 for Government Services, Supply and Services,
for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 8.4: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $2,195,600 for Government Services, Accommodation
Development, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 8.5: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $87,600 for Government Services, Land Value Appraisal
Commission, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 8.6: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $912,400 for Government Services, Disaster Assistance, for
the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
Resolution 8.7: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $11,149,300 for Government Services, Expenditures Related
to Capital, for the fiscal year ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Government Services.
FITNESS
AND SPORT
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Resolution 28.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $11,262,700 for Fitness and Sport for the fiscal year
ending the 31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for the
Department of Fitness and Sport.
STATUS OF
WOMEN
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Resolution 22.1: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty
a sum not exceeding $926,600 for Status of Women for the fiscal year ending the
31st day of March, 1994‑‑pass.
This concludes the Estimates for Status of
Women.
This concludes our consideration of the
Estimates in this section of Committee of Supply. I would like to thank the ministers and the
critics for their co‑operation.
Committee rise.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
Madam
Deputy Speaker (Louise Dacquay): The hour
being past 10 p.m., this House is adjourned and stands adjourned until 1:30
p.m. tomorrow (Tuesday).