LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA
Monday, June 13, 1994
The House met at 1:30
p.m.
PRAYERS
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
TABLING OF REPORTS
Hon. Gerald Ducharme
(Minister of Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to table the Supplementary Information for Legislative
Review 1994‑95 for Government Services and also for the Manitoba Seniors
Directorate.
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
Bill 24‑‑The Waste Reduction and
Prevention Amendment Act
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that leave be given to
introduce Bill 24, The Waste Reduction and Prevention Amendment Act (Loi
modifiant la Loi sur la réduction du volume et de la production des déchets),
and that the same now be received and read a first time.
His Honour the Lieutenant‑Governor, having been
advised of the contents of this bill, recommends it to the House. I would like to table his message as well.
Motion agreed to.
Introduction of Guests
Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the
attention of honourable members to the gallery, where we have with us this
afternoon from the Tyndall Park School twenty‑five Grade 4 students under
the direction of Mr. Colin Stark. This
school is located in the constituency of the honourable member for Inkster (Mr.
Lamoureux).
Also, from John Henderson Junior High, we have seven Grade
7 students. This school is located in
the constituency of the honourable member for Rossmere (Mr. Schellenberg).
On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to
welcome you here this afternoon.
* (1335)
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Immigrant Investor Fund
Government Action
Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, in 1989, we asked the provincial
government to monitor the investments of people involved in the Immigrant
Investor Fund, on November 8, 1989. We
further asked the government to protect Manitoba's reputation in terms of
investors from Asia on April 29, 1991, when the Premier (Mr. Filmon) talked
about how Manitoba has one of the best records with respect to ensuring that
investments of immigrant investors are put in secure vehicles and secure
investment opportunities.
Mr. Speaker, today, investors from Asia are quite concerned
and quite disappointed in terms of Canada and Canadian reputation in terms of
the security of their investment, an issue we have raised with the provincial
government for the last five years. This
is very important for Manitoba, and I am sure the Premier feels it is
important, as well, because we all want to see Manitoba's reputation be
impeccable and Canada's reputation be impeccable to investors all over the
world.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Premier (Mr. Filmon),
what action is this government taking to restore the integrity of our
investments in Manitoba and in Canada for the investors here today?
Hon. James Downey
(Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism):
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was this government that took the lead
nationally to call for an investigation as to the activities of the Immigrant
Investor Program, which is a federal government program. That has to be made clear.
We have further communicated with the federal
minister. I have, by letter, written to
the federal minister asking not to release the funds. We have put three conditions forward, Mr.
Speaker, that ask for a court‑directed solution to this problem. We have asked for representation, for the
investors to be on the board of directors, and we have asked for a full
disclosure or inquiry as to how the previous funds have been spent. Those are the three conditions we have asked
for. They have not been met, and we have
further indicated to the trust company our concerns and further advanced our
conditions to them.
I believe we have done everything possible to protect the
integrity of Manitoba, Mr. Speaker, but also to give some direction to the
federal government, which, by the way, did not heed our advice.
Mr. Doer: I want to table a letter. When we asked this question on May 16, Mr.
Speaker, the government indicated they would be contacting the federal
government. This is a letter dated June
1, 1994, indicating that, in fact, the federal government had approved the
reprise on these funds, and the letter goes on to say that there is a request
to downsize one of the projects affected by the funds.
I would like to ask the government, have they received any
response from the letter they have written to the federal government? Will the Premier (Mr. Filmon) be raising this
with the Prime Minister, because this is a very important international issue
in terms of investment, and, Mr. Speaker, can the government table any response
they have had from the federal government on this issue of integrity in
investment in Canada and in the province of Manitoba?
Mr. Downey: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have, in fact, written a
letter to the federal minister on April 25.
I have a reply of May 13 that I am prepared to make available to the
members.
I guess my concern is the fact that they did not deal with
the three conditions which we had asked them to deal with. They are basing their decision on the fact
that there had been an RCMP investigation which, in fact, did not deal with the
matters we had raised with them.
So, again, we are still of the same position. Our position has not changed, but that is not
being heeded by the federal government.
* (1340)
Mr. Doer: Mr. Speaker, the provincial government must
accept any proposals for the Immigrant Investor Fund prior to approval being
ultimately given by the federal government.
We have been raising this issue for the last five years, and, of course,
the government did take action, we think very late in the game, with the
investigation by Mr. Crewson in 1991‑92.
Mr. Speaker, investors today are talking about the fact
that they trusted Canada, they trusted Manitoba, in terms of their investments
and the integrity of their investments.
This market in Asia and all investors across the world are very
important to Canada and to our future.
I would like to ask the government, what action have they
taken and what information have they directly provided to the investors in
Manitoba projects under the Immigrant Investor Fund? Have they been in contact with the investors
to let them know our concerns provincially, to let them know the concerns we
have and the action we will take to restore the integrity of investments in the
province of Manitoba?
Mr. Downey: First of all, Mr. Speaker, we have to remind
the member that this is a federal government program. Secondly, it is my understanding that his
colleague, the former minister, Mr. Mackling, took it out from under the review
of the Securities Commission, passed a regulation specifically removing it from
the authority of the Securities Commission.
I can tell you, as well, Mr. Speaker, it was this
government, this Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson) currently, who was the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism, and this Premier (Mr. Filmon) who
called upon an inquiry to have a special audit of the programs in place. There was not one other province in Canada
that did it. The federal government did
not do it, even though, in opposition, the member, Mr. Axworthy, called for an
investigation. We now have the Hansard
of him calling for it, and I will be providing that information.
As well as his requesting a full‑blown investigation,
we would like to know what his position is today on it, Mr. Speaker, because
that has not happened. They have moved
contrary to the wishes of the Province of Manitoba. We are concerned about the reputation of
Manitoba, and we do believe it is a good place to invest.
Physiotherapy Services
Reduced Workweek
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, last week in the House, we asked
the minister about the effects of government cutbacks and Bill 22 on therapy
services to victims of stroke, arthritis, et cetera, and to people who could
not afford a delay in their treatment.
Can the minister today advise the House what provisions
have been put in place in order to ensure that individuals who require therapy
will not have unnecessary or needless delays as a result of government cutbacks
and Bill 22?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, the process of discussing
with the hospitals their plans is ongoing.
To the honourable member's credit, however, the issue he raised last
week was felt by myself to be of sufficient importance that I raised the issue
with the facilities with which we are working, as well, to ensure that our
bottom line of patient care is not impacted in a negative way.
So the honourable member's raising of the issue of stroke
victims last week was helpful to us, and I thank the honourable member.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for that
response, and maybe the minister can enlighten me as to what arrangements are
being put in place for patients who require this kind of therapy, who attend
the Seven Oaks Day Hospital, who have been advised by the day hospital it will
be closing on Friday, June 24; Friday, July 8; Monday, July 18; Monday, July
25; Friday, August 12; Monday, August 22 and Friday, September 9.
What arrangements are being put in place for individuals
who require therapy, stroke victims and others, when that day hospital will now
be closed because of the constraints put on the hospital by the government?
Mr. McCrae: I do not know if the arrangements the
honourable member is talking about have to do with Seven Oaks' response to the
Bill 22 matter. If it does, I will raise
that issue with Seven Oaks, as well.
Mr. Chomiak: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary to the
minister is, at that time, if, in fact, they are going to go ahead and close,
as they have indicated in the letter, the day hospital for those days, can the
minister ensure that the government will provide alternative therapies and
treatment such as some kind of expanded home care to these individuals, stroke
victims, arthritis victims, and others who require ongoing treatment?
Mr. McCrae: Mr. Speaker, I told the honourable member and
I have told him repeatedly that patient care is not to be impacted in a
negative way. The honourable member has
asked me about Seven Oaks. I said I
would raise the matter with Seven Oaks to find out what the impact will be on
patients.
It would be interesting, though, to know if the honourable
member could tell us what inquiries were made at Brandon General Hospital in
1987 when, for the first time, 42 beds were closed by the previous government
in Manitoba without any questions asked‑‑a New Democratic
government. The honourable member for
Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans) sat around that table that made that
decision. Once the decision was made, he
went into hiding, avoiding any questions from his constituents.
* (1345)
Education System Reform
Consultation‑‑Students
Mr. Paul Edwards (Leader
of the Second Opposition): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Education and Training.
I want to table a copy of the document called Grade 12
(Senior 4) Questionnaire, which has been sent around the province to various
schools for Grade 12 students to complete as part of the education reform
process. I want to start by saying that
we fully support the move to include students in the consultation process and
are very pleased to see the minister has come forward with some form of consultation
with the students.
My question for the minister, however, given that the
request was put to him by my colleague the member for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux)
over a month ago to bring the students into the process, are the results‑‑this
questionnaire only went out last week‑‑going to be back and
tabulated and gone through by his department in time to include the responses
from this very important group of people in deciding what education reform
should be? Are they going to be
incorporated into the blueprint itself, which the minister has repeatedly said
will be coming forward before the end of the month?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his complimentary tone with respect to the
question. I want him to rest assured
that this was in the works long before the subject was broached by the member
for Inkster.
The question is well put.
I would indicate to the member that I do not know whether or not we can
do a final collation of results coming forward from that survey before the blueprint
is released, but I want to indicate fully, Mr. Speaker, there will be an awful
lot of work to do on ed reform and on putting into place the final writing
around that blueprint long after it is released in due course. I would think at that time, that information
will be more aptly directed towards the completion of the writing of the
report.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. Speaker, again for the same minister, we
have been advised by some of the schools that these were couriered to the
schools, and it was asked that the results be couriered back to the
government. However, we also spoke to
some schools that indicated they had not received them.
I wanted to ask the minister for an assurance. I assume that these are going to all schools,
and perhaps the minister can clarify that.
If not, how were the schools chosen that these were going to go to?
Secondly, is Grade 12 the only grade level that is going to
be surveyed in this fashion?
Mr. Manness: Yes, it is the graduating class, but more
importantly, we have tried to bring into place a scientific survey method,
whereby fair representation across all of our student body has been asked to
fill in the survey.
Mr. Edwards: Finally then for the minister, rather than
surveying all students, it is obviously being done on a random basis and
perhaps on quite acceptable criteria.
However, I would ask the minister if he is prepared to
table the criteria upon which certain schools were selected so that all members
might be assured that the sample is, in fact, representative and, in fact, we
have the benefit of across‑the‑province knowledge of what students
are looking for in their education system?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as
notice, and I will endeavour to try and provide more information with respect
to the issue.
* (1350)
Education System
Guidance Counselling
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): While we are on the theme of listening to
youth, I would like to ask some questions of the Minister of Education.
Statistics show that teen suicide is up by 300 percent in
the last 15 years, and it is the second leading cause of death, second only to
auto accidents. I was concerned today by
news reports recommending that reports of youth in crisis go to school
counsellors, rather than to Child and Family Services, where the counsellors
are then, in turn, required to report them.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education the number of
school counselling positions in Manitoba that have been eliminated in schools
under this government in the last four years, and if we are not in a situation
now where we do not have the personnel‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put her question.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I do not know what point the member was really trying to make. Certainly, there have been changes with
respect to funding and some student support services. What we have asked jurisdictions, school
boards to do, is to share amongst themselves the level of support that the
government provides by way of funding.
As the member is fully well aware, we brought into place
three years ago a suicide crisis line under the call of the Department of
Health. We are trying to do what we can
within this area, this emerging concern area to all of society.
Ms. Cerilli: The point I am trying to make is, I do not
think we have the resources in the schools anymore, perhaps we never did, to
deal with the amount of crisis that is out there.
I would like to ask the government if they have any
recommendations for how schools can deal with this overburden on the personnel
in the schools, with the number of children who are in crisis due to family poverty
and unemployment, family violence, death and drugs in families and teen
pregnancy.
These are some of the problems I think that are leading to
teenage suicide. I would like some
recommendations from this government for schools as to how they can deal with
these problems.
Mr. Manness: What we know for sure, Mr. Speaker, is that
after 25 years of trying to deal with all of the problems in public schools, we
are not getting very far. We are not
getting very well along, and so maybe it is time to rethink what it is we are
trying to do within our public schools, and that is the essence of ed reform
that we will be bringing forward.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Speaker, the government must realize that
eliminating resources‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
Ms. Cerilli: I would like to ask the minister, how will
this government provide support to schools that are dealing with suicide when
they have eliminated the school counsellor consultant in the Department of
Education who was there to provide the program support? How is that support now going to be provided
to schools in Manitoba?
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the seriousness
of the question‑‑I did not want to give a fiscal response to this,
but the member keeps repeating the same garbage over and over again.
In fact‑‑[interjection] That is right, Mr.
Speaker, the garbage dealing with the fiscal reality‑‑18.7 percent
directed towards education today, as compared to 17.2 when we came into
government. That is the garbage to which‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think
that the minister's use of the word "garbage" in reference to my
question is completely inappropriate and not parliamentary, and I would ask
that he withdraw that remark.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point
of order. That is a dispute‑‑
Mr. Manness: On the same point of order, garbage is too
nice a word for that.
Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.
Education System Reform
Consultation‑‑Students
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education.
In the student survey that was put out, the minister makes
reference to a student behaviour code.
If we go back to the high school commission review, where there was a
request in terms of rules governing a learning environment‑‑in
fact, some provinces, for example, the Province of New Brunswick has brought in
a provincial code of conduct or behaviour for schools.
My question to the minister is, is this government looking
at bringing in a province‑wide code of conduct or behaviour for Manitoba
schools?
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, it seems the member for Inkster is trying to scoop the announcement
with respect to ed reform. I would say
to him that the greater focus will be within the school community, and indeed,
the school community will decide what code of conduct it would wish to apply to
itself. In our view, that would probably
be a preferred course of action.
I have seen some of the provincial codes of behaviour, and
they are extremely wide. They are not an
awful lot different from not having a code at all. Consequently, I would think it might be
better to focus on within the school community and let them determine what code
of behaviour they want to have for themselves.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, allow me to be very clear using
an example.
We in the Liberal Party believe that, as a student, you
should not be able to hit a teacher‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not a time for debate.
The honourable member for Inkster, with your question, sir.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of
Education is, if a student hits a teacher, will the minister agree that this is
wrong and provide a basic code of conduct that would allow a very strong
direction to all the student bodies across the province of Manitoba and say so
in a provincial code?
Mr. Manness: I have been listening to my colleague the
Minister of Justice (Mrs. Vodrey) day after day trying to get a view from the
Liberal Party of where they stand on violence, Mr. Speaker‑‑the
soft approach.
So here, Mr. Speaker, we finally have the Liberals saying
they do not want the teacher to be hit.
Is that not a revelation? Who
does? I am saying, this government is
going to take a strong leadership role with respect to how it is we try and
reduce the impact of violence in the classroom, and we do not need to take
leadership from the Liberal Party, who finally, finally, is about to take a
strong view on something.
* (1355)
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very
clear for the Minister of Education.
Does this government support bringing in a code of conduct throughout
the province of Manitoba that would, in fact, ensure some basic fundamentals,
to ensure there is behaviour that is acceptable throughout the province of
Manitoba, that it is being administered, not depending on what a school
division might‑‑
Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has put his question.
Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I will state the obvious. There will be nothing within ed reform that
sanctions the hitting of the teacher in the classroom.
Child and Family Services
Time Guidelines‑‑Abuse Committee
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting
Minister of Family Services.
When an individual is accused of child abuse, the
individual goes through considerable anxiety, particularly when the accused
person is found to be not guilty. The
consequences for these individuals are devastating, and they include marriage
breakup and family breakup. The
Ombudsman, in his report for 1993, points out that there are no time guidelines
for Child and Family Services agencies' child abuse committees, and these
accusations are not always processed on a timely basis.
My question for the Acting Minister of Family Services is,
has the Minister of Family Services taken action with Child and Family Services
agencies to establish time guidelines for their abuse committees?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, I will take that question as notice on behalf of the minister.
Child and Family Services Act
Amendments
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Has the minister done a legislative review,
and if so, will the minister bring in an amendment to The Child and Family
Services Act, which is something that is badly needed?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as has been said on a number of occasions, there are issues around The
Child and Family Services Act which are under review, and I am sure the
minister will be taking the member's comments seriously, and I expect that
sometime in the near future, a major review of that act will be forthcoming.
Child and Family Services
Time Guidelines‑‑Abuse Committee
Mr. Doug Martindale
(Burrows): Has the minister looked into the Child Abuse Registry
committee and the issue of whether or not there are time guidelines there, and
can the minister report on whether there is a backlog of individuals whose
names are either waiting to go on the abuse registry or names which are
eligible to come off the abuse registry?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Family Services (Mrs. Mitchelson), I will
take that question as notice.
Sexual Assault
Victim Assistance
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister
of Justice.
Today, Statistics Canada released a survey about victims of
crime. Most disturbing in that survey
was a finding that 90 percent of sexual assaults are never even reported to
police. In fact, the City of Winnipeg
statistics for last year show that reports to police for sexual offences went
down by 16 percent.
My question to the minister is, would the minister finally
take an active role and put programs in place to encourage women to come
forward so we can deal with the needs of these hidden survivors and deal with
this injustice?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, we certainly do have a number of
programs which are in place. We also
have our victim services programs which do assist a number of victims across
the province. I believe the range of
people assisted was in the area of over 20,000 individuals in this province.
This is a very serious issue and we certainly are
attempting to provide that assistance through the programs we have currently.
* (1400)
Domestic Violence Court
Backlog
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): Mr. Speaker, given that the study shows that
women are victims of crime at a rate of 11 percent more than men, would the
minister now announce a change in her policies, policies which have seen
funding cease for victim services in five communities, a new get‑soft
approach to domestic abusers and horrendous backlogs in the Family Violence
Court so that the assailants do not face justice for up to one year?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that he is quite incorrect in the information
he has put forward. He knows we have had
a lengthy discussion around the issue of the time it takes to process
individuals through the due process of justice.
The member, himself, certainly coming from that background, should
understand the importance of due process of justice.
Mr. Speaker, he also knows that we have been putting in
place systemic changes to ensure that individuals can come forward,
particularly in the area of our Domestic Violence Court, within a reasonable
length of time. We have recently made
changes which allow some individuals to come through within that three‑month
window, and the longest period of time is in the five‑to‑seven‑month
range, and that is very frequently as a result of requests from defence.
Mr. Mackintosh: Mr. Speaker, when the minister talks of due
process, she means overdue process.
Auto Theft
Government Strategy
Mr. Gord Mackintosh (St.
Johns): My question is, despite Canada‑wide
trends in crime rates and given that in Winnipeg, car thefts have increased by
170 percent in the last year alone and only 13 percent of those cases are being
solved, can the minister explain to this House why, after a year and a half of
this trend, there is not a single program put in place, nothing done by this
government to deal with this epidemic of car theft and vandalism?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I really have to go back to speaking about due process of
law. Whatever kinds of phrases the
member wants to throw out, he should be ashamed of himself, coming from a legal
background, to throw out phrases which treat in such an incredibly flippant
style the due process of law.
This government put in place the system of the Domestic
Violence Court. That party did
nothing. This government has
action. We have acted and we continue to
act on behalf of Manitobans.
Post‑Adoption Registry
Search Fee
Mr. Eric Robinson
(Rupertsland): Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Acting
Minister of Family Services.
The minister will recall that my colleagues and I have
previously asked questions concerning the imposing of a post‑adoption
registry fee. This year, this government
plans to take some $85,000 from people searching for their children.
How does this charge fit in with the government's stated
support for the International Year of the Family?
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Acting Minister of Family Services: Mr.
Speaker, the member is correct. This was
discussed in the Estimates of the Department of Family Services, and I
understand the proposal brought forward by this department is based on fees
charged in the province of Saskatchewan.
Mr. Robinson: This fee is going to stop many people who do
not have $300 for such fees. I would
like to ask the same minister, how many fewer people will use the registry this
year because of the government's actions?
Mr. Gilleshammer: Following on the Saskatchewan model, the
registration fee is $35, and I would tell the member it will be waived for
social assistance recipients.
Mr. Robinson: My final question: Given the example of Hilda Geisbrecht, who is
being asked to pay $300, even though it was her son who contacted the registry,
I want to ask the acting minister, what flexibility and what appeal process
will the minister be putting in place for disputes over the fee being charged?
Mr. Gilleshammer: As the member is possibly aware, we cannot
discuss individual cases here in the House.
I would indicate that I will pass the member's question on to the
minister and the department, and I am sure that they will get fair treatment.
RCMP Detachment
Ethelbert, Manitoba
Ms. Rosann Wowchuk (Swan
River): Mr. Speaker, I have a petition here signed by
over 350 people from the Ethelbert area who are concerned because the Ethelbert
RCMP detachment is being reduced from a three‑ to a two‑person
detachment. They are concerned also
because they are told that this detachment could be closed.
I want to ask the minister responsible why this detachment
which serves a very large area is being reduced, and is this government moving
towards closing more rural RCMP detachments in Manitoba?
Hon. Rosemary Vodrey
(Minister of Justice and Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, the member knows that the RCMP is in charge of looking at
how they will provide their services across the province and that they
certainly work with communities. I work
closely with the RCMP to make sure there is adequate policing service across
this province.
We have, in addition, just entered into the agreement with
the Dakota Ojibway Tribal Council to ensure that there is policing on the
reserve areas and will continue to work with the RCMP to see that there is very
significant policing across Manitoba.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, I understand there is a study
being done studying the utilization by some of the areas in Manitoba, and
people have been told that until this study is complete, no more changes will
take place, no more detachments will be reduced in size.
Why is the Ethelbert detachment being reduced before the
study is complete?
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, what the member is speaking
about is a process which I believe is taking place across Canada in terms of
RCMP divisions where the RCMP is examining their delivery of service, whether
or not there can be administrative RCMP officers who can be redeployed to do
work actually in communities and to make sure that the service is the most
effective one.
We are well aware of the study which is taking place and
have observer status to monitor the ongoing process of that study.
Ms. Wowchuk: Mr. Speaker, the minister says she is aware
of this study. I want to ask her what
assurances or what steps she is taking to ensure that people in remote areas,
in rural areas, have an opportunity to have input, to give their opinions and
to plead their case as to why their detachments should not be reduced.
Mrs. Vodrey: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is a study which
is being undertaken by the RCMP. It is
being undertaken by the RCMP across this province to examine how they can best
deliver and best utilize their complement within the province of Manitoba.
The RCMP, I understand, will be speaking with
communities. I understand that has
already begun. As I said to the member,
we also retain an observer status to monitor the process of that study.
Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts
Government Action
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday, I believe it was
June 7, I attended a meeting of residents of Metropolitan Kiwanis Courts and
their families and friends that was held as a result of increasing anxiety of
the residents as a result of some changes, and where an ad hoc committee was
formed. I believe George Le Baron will
be the chair of this ad hoc committee.
My question is to the Minister of Health. As the minister was not there, nor his staff
or anyone from his caucus, has he been in contact with Mr. Le Baron or anyone
from his committee?
Hon. James McCrae
(Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable
member's interest in this matter, but I wonder why it took him from last
Tuesday when he attended the meeting to raise the matter with me. Matters have been raised on a daily basis by
the honourable member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) with myself before that
meeting and since that meeting, so I appreciate the honourable member's
interest, belated though it is.
The concerns of the people of that area are being very,
very adequately and commendably represented by the honourable member for
Sturgeon Creek, and we are working together along with the residents of the
area to address the outstanding concerns that remain.
Mr. Kowalski: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is,
will the Minister of Health and the Minister of Housing (Mrs. McIntosh) work
together with the board, the Metropolitan Kiwanis and this residents committee
to resolve the situation in a positive way?
Mr. McCrae: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been working and
will continue to work to provide the assurance to the people there that the
residents are the No. 1 priority in the minds of the government and the member
for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine). We
expect to have a satisfactory resolution of all matters.
* (1410)
Unemployment Insurance Commission
Training Freeze
Ms. Jean Friesen
(Wolseley): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister
of Education and Training.
For some months, there has been a freeze on portions of the
federal UIC training money, and I wanted to ask the Minister of Education
whether he had spoken recently to the federal Minister of Employment to
determine what the impact of those delays in the federal social reform process
will be and how much longer the portions of training money will be frozen in
Manitoba.
Hon. Clayton Manness
(Minister of Education and Training): Mr.
Speaker, I have not recently spoken to Mr. Axworthy, but certainly we are waiting
with bated breath the next move federally with respect to the whole reform
policy. I am hoping there will be
something concrete yet this month.
Ms. Friesen: My concern is for the continuing freeze, and
I wanted to ask the minister, would he investigate the impact of these frozen
funds on unemployed Manitobans? What
proportion, for example, of unemployed Manitobans are getting training this
year as compared to, say, two years ago?
Mr. Manness: I do not have that information. I will take the question as notice.
Ms. Friesen: Would the minister also investigate the
impact of these frozen funds on Manitoba's community colleges, particularly for
the planning for the fall session?
Mr. Manness: I know it is difficult for the colleges at
this time to complete their planning for the fall schedule. I do not know at this point in time when it
is we can expect a response to work towards greater certainty by the federal
government.
Public Housing
Safety Review
Mr. Leonard Evans
(Brandon East): I have a question for the Minister of Urban
Affairs.
A couple of weeks ago, I raised the matter of installing
fencing behind certain public housing units in the city of Brandon to help
prevent future railway accidents involving young children. The minister responded positively. She also intimated, I believe, that the
department would look at other public housing unit locations in Brandon with
regard to this same problem.
I would ask her specifically today whether her staff would
conduct a complete review to see whether other fences may be warranted as a
preventative measure.
Hon. Linda McIntosh
(Minister of Urban Affairs): Staff is
going to take a look at other housing units to see if indeed a similar
dangerous situation exists.
I have not yet heard back from them on that. I hope to do so before too long, and I will
let the member know as soon as I have heard what they have had to report to me.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for that answer,
although I did not hear the latter part of it because of certain interjections,
so I would ask the minister, when this review is complete, would she be
prepared to make a report to the Legislature or make a public report of this
problem?
Mrs. McIntosh: I had indicated in the last part to the
question that was obscured by commentary in the House that was not for Hansard
that I will be hearing back from my staff.
When I do, I will contact the member and let him know the
results of that report. At that time, I
will decide if we need to do anything further.
I will be sure to stay in touch with him on it.
Mr. Leonard Evans: I thank the minister for a very positive
response in this matter today and a couple of weeks ago.
As a more general question with regard to future
construction of family housing units, will her department have any particular
policy on the installation of fences as may be required? I am talking about future construction
wherever in this province, again, considering the question of very small
children who sometimes are difficult to control to ensure that we do everything
possible to prevent any type of accident involving very young children.
Mrs. McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate for starters
something I believe I have mentioned that may not be known to the member that
well, and that is, the federal government has now indicated it will no longer
be funding or cost‑sharing in the construction of new social housing
units. That cost‑sharing not being
there may make it difficult for us to be doing a lot of new construction.
We are, however, looking at making sure that our existing
stock is well maintained, and all of those issues concerning safety will be
examined by staff. We do not currently
have a policy that says we will build fences, but given that this situation has
occurred, it is what I have asked them to explore.
Income Security Program
Telephone Service
Ms. Becky Barrett
(Wellington): Mr. Speaker, in the Pedlar report delivered
to the government in August of 1991, one of the responses that the Pedlar
report asked for from the provincial government was: "that Manitoba Family Services/Income
Security implement a policy of including the cost of telephone services as a
basic need for victims of domestic violence."
I would like to ask the Acting Minister of Family Services
if that recommendation has been followed and the degree to which it has been
implemented.
Hon. Harold Gilleshammer
(Acting Minister of Family Services): Mr.
Speaker, as my honourable friend is well aware, a number of reforms have been
brought to the Income Security Program.
Just in case she has maybe lost the information I have
given her in the past, I would indicate that among the things that were done
was the creation of a new rate for disabled people to recognize some of their
special needs. Single parents who are on
social assistance who needed the comfort of maintaining their health benefits
as they left the program are able to do that for up to a year at this time.
We have recognized that liquid assets were very low in the
past and under the previous government had remained unchanged for some
time. We made a major step in increasing
those liquid assets so members of that community who are on social assistance
are able to buy some of those things they needed.
Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired.
NONPOLITICAL STATEMENTS
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Kildonan have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Andrew Mynarski Park Commemoration
Mr. Dave Chomiak
(Kildonan): Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House on the
occasion yesterday to mark a very important ceremony in the life of Manitoba,
Winnipeg and Canada in general. That is
the commemoration of a park yesterday to honour Pilot Officer Andrew Mynarski,
V.C., on the 50th anniversary of the fateful mission for which Mr. Andrew
Mynarski was awarded the Victoria Cross.
Members from all political parties, the member for Niakwa
(Mr. Reimer), the member for The Maples (Mr. Kowalski), the member for St.
Johns (Mr. Mackintosh) from our party all had occasion to attend the ceremony
yesterday and commended and talked about the exploits of this very courageous
individual who serves as a role model not only to individuals in the Polish
community, but to all Manitobans and all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, it is quite fitting that a plaque was unveiled
yesterday and a park was named in commemoration of Pilot Officer Andrew
Mynarski to go together with the civic ward that carries his name, the Royal
Canadian Legion that carries his name and the school that carries his name.
I recall as a youth, Mr. Speaker, the very strong effect
that the exploits and the story of Andrew Mynarski had on me and all the
children in our class from north end Winnipeg, in fact, because the story was
contained‑‑and I think members in this House will recall‑‑in
the standard reader we used to have in elementary school. It was a very courageous and fitting
one. The effect of his courageous giving
of his life for Canada and the very methodology in the way by which it was
carried out had a very profound effect on me and my fellow students, many of
whom were first‑generation immigrants from Poland and Ukraine.
I think it is very fitting that all members of this House
join me in commemorating the 50th anniversary of this gallant individual's
mission and all that he did for Canada and all he stood for, particularly in
light of the anniversary commemorating D‑Day invasions that have occurred
also almost simultaneously with this event, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Niakwa have
leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Jack Reimer
(Niakwa): Mr. Speaker, I would also like to join in
expressing the gratitude of being invited to the unveiling of the plaque for
Andrew Mynarski on Jefferson and Mandalay Street. It was indeed gratifying to be there, not
only for the sake of bringing greetings from the government, but in meeting the
family of Andrew Mynarski. His two
sisters were there.
Also, another very important aspect of my visit there was
meeting one of the crew members, one of the actual crew members who was on the
plane with Andrew Mynarski on the unfortunate night which was 50 years ago
almost exactly to the day. It actually
happened on the evening of June 12. It
was approximately about two o'clock in the late night of June 12 that the
actual plane went down.
After the services at the park, there was also a
commemorative service at the Canadian Forces air force base out on Sharp
Boulevard in which there was the ceremony in a building that is dedicated to
the memory of Andrew Mynarski with all the memorabilia, the original crew pictures
and some of the actual happenings that happened on that fateful night.
Mr. Speaker, it was a very moving experience. It was an experience that I would join all
members here in the House to pay tribute to a great Canadian, a great
Manitoban, Andrew Mynarski. Thank you.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for The Maples
have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [agreed]
Mr. Gary Kowalski (The
Maples): I would like to add my words of recognition
to what went on on Sunday.
We in The Maples are especially honoured that the park
chosen to honour Andrew Mynarski is in our constituency. I was moved by the ceremony. I met many of the family, friends, even an ex‑crew
member of Andrew Mynarski at the ceremony.
What I found especially touching was that a number of my former partners
in the police force were there. I can
remember situations of danger that we faced together and how those terrible
incidents, whether it is in war or in peacetime, brings out the worst and the
best in all of us.
I think we not only honour Andrew Mynarski, but all the
other heroes that we never found out about.
It was a great honour to be part of the ceremony. I join in commemorating this event.
Committee Changes
Mr. George Hickes (Point
Douglas): Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 1994, I moved a
committee substitution for the Standing Committee on Public Utilities and
Natural Resources for the Tuesday, June 21, 1994, meeting. The substitution was the honourable member
for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for the honourable member for Flin Flon (Mr.
Storie). At that time, the House agreed
to a substitution.
Since that time, the committee meeting in question has been
moved up from Tuesday, June 21, to Tuesday, June 14. I was wondering if there was leave of the
House to make the committee substitution for the Standing Committee on Public
Utilities and Natural Resources of the member for Transcona (Mr. Reid) for the
member for Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) effective for June 14 instead of June 21.
Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member have leave to make
that committee change? Leave. [agreed]
Mr. Hickes: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member
for Thompson (Mr. Ashton), that the composition of the Standing Committee on
Public Utilities and Natural Resources be amended as follows: Flin Flon (Mr. Storie) for Transcona (Mr.
Reid) for June 21, 1994, for 10 a.m.
Motion agreed to.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Stefanson), that Mr. Speaker do now
leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a committee to consider of
the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty.
Motion agreed to, and the House resolved
itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty
with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr. Laurendeau) in the Chair for
the Department of Environment; and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs.
Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Highways and Transportation.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
(Concurrent Sections)
ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Deputy Chairperson
(Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
* (1430)
This afternoon, this section of the Committee of Supply
meeting in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the
Department of Environment. When the
committee last sat it had been considering item 2.(a)(1) on page 52 of the
Estimates book. I believe it is pages 28
and 29 of the book you are in.
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, to start off with, I
just want to get some clarification from the minister regarding other
opportunities for raising issues related to this department. The member for Osborne (Ms. McCormick) and I
were just having a discussion with respect to the Hazardous Waste Management
Corporation. We have a number of
questions related to hazardous waste and the corporation.
I am wondering if we can get some commitments from the
minister regarding the time we can expect the committee dealing with the
corporation to resume, if he has made any commitments related to that and if he
can tell the committee.
Hon. Glen Cummings
(Minister of Environment): I have indicated
that we will certainly answer as many questions as the members would like to
bring forward right now. The House
leaders will discuss what committees they are going to call and when.
Ms. Cerilli: I would just like to put on the record that,
because there are so many environment issues, I would prefer to deal with the
Hazardous Waste Management Corporation and those issues under that
committee. I would ask if the minister
is in agreement with that and if we could have some agreement that we would be
able to have his indication that he is going to tell his House leader that he
is willing to have the corporation come up under the standing committee within
the next week or so.
Mr. Cummings: There is lots of opportunity and willingness
to deal with any hazardous waste issues that the members would like to bring up
right now.
Ms. Cerilli: Is the minister being coy? Is he suggesting that he is not going to
resume the Hazardous Waste Management annual review of the annual report under
the standing committee?
Mr. Cummings: It seems to me that almost every one of the
annual reports out there has been outstanding for a year or two before
opposition has chosen to pass them. The
number of committees that are called have nothing to do with when those reports
are passed.
If the member has a question, let us get at it.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, as I just finished
saying, I think there are a variety of issues that we could deal with under
hazardous waste, but there are a lot of irregularities going on with the
Hazardous Waste Management Corporation.
I have an issue of Hazardous Materials Management magazine
with me, and I have some questions related to the corporation based on
this. I really want to use my time most
expeditiously, and I would prefer to deal with the corporation at the
committee. I would appreciate it if the
minister would indicate to his House leader that we would like to have that
standing committee resume within the next week or so.
Mr. Cummings: I think I am familiar with the article that
the member referenced. If she has a
question, I would be more than willing to answer it or attempt to answer it.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I will then resume my
questions related to the Environment Estimates review.
I want to start off with asking the minister to clarify the
process now that there has been an injunction filed with respect to the
hearings by the Clean Environment Commission on Louisiana‑Pacific's
proposal up in Swan River.
Mr. Cummings: Everything is subject to what may unfold, I
suppose, when the court resumes. But, at
this point, the advice I have is that the court has simply indicated that the
panel shall not make a decision prior to the court having heard the appeal when
a date is set for the 23rd of June, and that would certainly appear to be quite
compatible with the process that is underway at Swan River. The hearings are scheduled to continue this
week and they are continuing.
Ms. Cerilli: So the hearings will continue and the commission
will continue to hear research presented and testimony, even though the court
will be preparing its material and going ahead on June 23, you said, when the
court will sit.
Mr. Cummings: The court is not preparing at this
point. Those who are seeking the
injunction will undoubtedly be preparing their position. The court has set a date when they will hear
their arguments.
Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that clarification.
I would ask if this deadline or this date of June 23 is
compatible with dates that the company has put forward for its deadline.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. Could I ask the honourable members, if they
want to carry on their conversation to do it up on the side over here so that
the interject mike does not pick you up and interfere with Hansard.
The honourable minister, to respond.
Mr. Cummings: Let me very clear about this. The company has nothing to do with it,
absolutely nothing to do with it.
Ms. Cerilli: Nothing to do with what, Mr. Deputy
Chairperson.
Mr. Cummings: There seems to be an echo in here. I just had a question from the NDP critic as
to whether or not the court dates were compatible with the company's proposals. My response is the company has absolutely
nothing to do with what the court may or may not set for dates. They certainly did not consult the company
and certainly did not consult me. The
courts will act independently in response to the presentation that they have
received in request of an injunction.
Ms. Cerilli: I thank the minister for that, because what I
was referring to was the deadline that Louisiana‑Pacific has given for
when they wanted to be given the environment licence for the go‑ahead to
begin construction. I heard there were
some deadlines given of June at some point.
I am wondering if this injunction is going to jeopardize that deadline
at all.
Mr. Cummings: Is the member concerned that it might?
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, with all due respect,
I am the opposition. I will be asking
the questions here today.
Is the minister not going to answer my question?
Mr. Cummings: As I have said many times, once the company
enters into the environmental review process, it is out of their hands. They understand the process. They understand that the commission operates
independently and certainly the courts operate independently, and they will
have to function within those parameters.
* (1440)
Ms. Cerilli: So, just to clarify, the Clean Environment Commission
is operating independently and is not bound by any requests in agreements or
presentations or proposals by the company.
Mr. Cummings: That is correct. This is one thing, of course, that does, I
think, create an aura that is sometimes to the advantage of the opposition and
the opponents to major projects. It is
not the first time that people who are opponents to a particular process have
sought refuge in the courts or have restitution or relief, whatever the correct
terminology would be.
The company indicated early on that it wanted to be in a
certain position by a certain time, but, frankly, I have indicated many times
those who criticize the Manitoba environment process, I think, do so probably
not well advised, because the process is quite independent. We always expect panels to proceed
expeditiously, but we do not expect them to be driven in the sense that
somebody pulls a date out of the air, particularly a proponent pulls a date out
of the air and proceeds.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister made the comment that they
wanted to be at a certain position at a certain time. Does the minister have any information that
could clarify that? What position did
they want to be at at what time?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, this is absurd. I am being asked to regulate the
company. At the same time, the member is
now asking me to regurgitate or restate some publicly stated matters that the
company put on the record. I would
suggest they put it on the record perhaps before they understood our process,
but my job is to enforce the process and let the commission operate unfettered.
Now that the environmental assessment is completed and the
hearings are underway, I am not sure that the member is advancing her case or
the case for environmental protection in this province by following this line
of discussion. I certainly am going to
make every effort not to say anything that would impede or reflect on either
the commission or the courts.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, all I am trying to do
is get a little information from the minister and get that put on the
record. This is the place where the
Environment department is held accountable to the public of Manitoba and that
is part of what my job is as the critic and the MLA for our party that does
this. So I do not think that I am asking
any questions that have not been, as the minister says, asked before. All that I am trying to do is put the picture
together right here today. We are in an
advantageous position of being in Estimates at this time. This is a very significant issue.
Mr. Cummings: I am quite prepared to enhance discussion or
debate of the process and how it is followed and how it proceeds, but I have to
emphasize that once any proponent enters into our process, we watch and wait
worriedly until the recommendations come out the other end. We, I do not think, would ever want to put
anything forward that indicates anything other than a great deal of respect for
the process and for the commission and the work they are doing.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: On a point of order, I am having difficulty
hearing the minister. I do not know if
he needs to speak into the mike or we need to have more decorum in the
committee.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member does not have a point
of order, but I would ask the members who are here to please refrain from
having any discussions or entering into the debate. This is an opportunity for the critic to ask
some questions, and I would appreciate it if the minister was able to respond
and be heard.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: I am basically repeating what I said earlier,
that I am not anxious to do anything more than debate the format that is
followed and to re‑emphasize that once this proponent, being Louisiana‑Pacific,
or any other proponent enters into the process, they will have to conform to
the process that we have laid out within the guidelines in The Environment Act.
I find it somewhat disappointing that we have on the one
hand both the opposition parties somewhat skeptical of the process and stating
so publicly, and then at the same time we have the member for Swan River (Ms.
Wowchuk) putting on the record that she is disappointed in how slow the process
is going.
So I have to express my frustration in viewing how some of
my political antagonists view this process.
I guess what you say depends on where you are and which audience you are
discussing the issues with.
Certainly, I get the feeling there is some frustration on the
part of the member for Swan River, that she would like this process to move
along, and yet I get the sense from the direction of the questioning that I am
getting from the member for Radisson, that she is quite sympathetic to the case
that is being put forward to the court and questioning the speed at which the
process is moving‑‑
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: I am not sure if the House rules apply here,
but I definitely think the minister is impugning motives to my question, and I
would just ask him to answer the questions.
I have two more questions on this issue and then I would
like to move along. We do not have very
much more time for the departmental Estimates, and rather than playing
politics, the phrase they often like to use on the other side, I would like to
just have the questions dealt with, and let us move along.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable member did not have a point of
order. It was clearly a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am disappointed
that we are getting into a situation where if I react to some of the angles of
questioning that appear to be designed to imply or impugn, that the process
into which we are entering is somehow flawed.
When I look at the somewhat dappled history of
environmental assessment in this province prior to our government taking
office, we had the Limestone project, one of the largest projects up to that
date, being put in place without any environmental assessment. I see the NDP in Saskatchewan do not want to
enter into an environmental assessment of their uranium mines, even though the
federal government is seeking to have that done.
I ask your forgiveness if I appear to be a little testy
about the manner in which our process is being run. The people from Louisiana‑Pacific have
stated very clearly that this is one of the toughest processes that they have
ever encountered. Yet I constantly have
my critics saying that these guys will run amuck and referring in a derogatory
sense to the fact that Manitoba is being treated like a Third World country.
It cannot be both ways.
It cannot be a tough process in a Third World country. If that is what they think is happening here,
then there is a great deal of confusion about the situation and the gravity,
frankly, of the measures that are being taken to make sure that Louisiana‑Pacific
operates in the future in a way that is regulated appropriately by the
department, that any known impacts are determined at this stage in the process,
and I would be more than anxious to move along to the next line of questioning.
Ms. Cerilli: Does the minister have a legal opinion with
respect to the separation of the hearings and the environmental impact
assessment on this proposal? By that, I
mean to look solely during this hearing at the operation and the construction
of the plant itself without examining the sustainability of the cut area?
Mr. Cummings: I am not going to enter into the debate about
opinions. You, unfortunately, can find
several different lawyers to provide different opinions depending on their
approach. I am quite confident that the
environmental assessment of the forests can proceed unimpeded.
I am advised this may well be one of the things that is
being raised in the issues that are being put before the court, and therefore I
probably will not answer the question.
Ms. Cerilli: Can the minister tell us if part of the
proposal or any part of the agreement with respect to this company includes
them now having some shares in Repap?
Mr. Cummings: I am ill equipped to answer that question,
but I believe the answer is no.
* (1450)
Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then, these are two companies
that are not in any way joined?
(Mr. Jack Reimer, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
Mr. Cummings: I have not been privy to any discussion or
review of the pedigree of these two companies, but I think what the member is
probably referring to is that there are cutting areas that Repap had access to
that they now acknowledge they would be unlikely to require.
As I recall the original situation, they have indicated
that those cutting areas can be made available for other uses, and that may
well be the use of this forest management plan.
I think I would again have to defer from answering the
specifics of those questions, because that is regulated under the Department of
Natural Resources. We are very cautious
and very conscientious about the fact that what used to be given away is now a
valuable matter, that being the deep forest cutting licences. It is not that long ago those were sort of
meted out without much value necessarily being attached to them. We now certainly recognize the value that is
attached there, and that has led to a much more rigorous licensing and
allocation process.
Ms. Cerilli: Can we or will we have any of the cut
allocation currently under Repap's cut area transferred to LP or Louisiana‑Pacific
prior to there being a Clean Environment Commission or other level of
government hearing, environmental impact assessment hearing, on that cut area?
Mr. Cummings: I do not think I am qualified to answer that
question.
Ms. Cerilli: Why not?
Mr. Cummings: I am not the minister responsible for
forestry, frankly.
Ms. Cerilli: It is a question related to environmental
impact assessment. It is a question
related to the ability to have environmental licensing for cut area. I think that it is possibly something the
minister has to co‑operate with the other minister on, but certainly I
think he has the authority to answer the question.
Mr. Cummings: I guess as a member of Executive Council I
can answer any one of the questions. I
just do not know the answer in this particular case.
I think where the member is trying to get to, however, is
what is the validity of the environmental licensing of the forest cutting
program and the process that that will be put through. It will very much look into the cutting
practices, what areas will be cut, how they will be cut, the specific
management in sensitive areas, stream crossings, where roads may or may not be
allowed, all of those things, a very intensive process and certainly not
anything that I understand other than the very strictest application of the
forest management and the environmental licensing process for forestry
management that will be followed.
I anticipate environmental licensing for the forestry
program to be very intense and very detailed, and frankly‑‑I am
allowed one candid comment this afternoon‑‑I assume that would be
where people would wish to put forward most of their concerns and efforts,
because this can be particularly detailed work.
Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify then, given the completion of
the operation, the plant itself, will there be any cutting with cut going to
Louisiana‑Pacific prior to hearings on cut allocation and allowable cut
for this new company?
Mr. Cummings: I am not sure that the question is totally
relevant inasmuch as nothing will be cut without an environmental licence
permitting that cutting.
Ms. Cerilli: That is not the question I asked,
though. The question I asked was with
respect to the environmental impact assessment on the cutting and allocation
for the new company.
I am wondering if the minister can give us some guarantee
that there will be an assessment before any cut is going to be supplied to the
new company.
Mr. Cummings: The company is not going to be cutting
forthwith once they have finished up the hearings that they are in. They are applying for a plant and the
licensing of that plant. Immediately
following that or as soon as possible, I would imagine that the next process
would be followed.
I am not sure that I follow the gist of the member's
question. I think what she is wondering
about is timing down the road and whether or not the company might be able to
operate or whether it might be confounded and ground to a halt because it had
not got its forestry environmental licensing completed. I would remind the member that the company
might well be able to buy logs from other sources. They do not have to buy them from Manitoba.
Ms. Cerilli: Just to clarify, my question is related to
supplying the new company with trees prior to an environmental impact
assessment on its request for a cut licence, and I want some guarantees if that
is going to be able to happen.
Mr. Cummings: I am responding as lucidly as I can that,
even if they are unable to get the lumber, the wood they might need under the
appropriate timing and licensing process, if that is the concern that the
member has‑‑and I presume that she is concerned. If she wants them to be able to cut as
quickly as possible, my answer is that if that becomes an issue, they can well
buy from private suppliers, other pre‑existing wood‑harvesting
licensees, some of whom might well be outside of the province. So the company will not be hamstrung by the
process here, if in fact that should occur.
They may be able to acquire the material from other sources.
Ms. Cerilli: Can they buy from Repap or from other local
people?
Mr. Cummings: I am informed that, if they were to be buying
from one of those sources, the licence of those licensees would have to be
amended.
Ms. Cerilli: Can that happen without a public hearing or a
public process and full environmental impact assessment?
Mr. Cummings: Repap, for example, annually has to publicly‑‑there
is a licensing process which has a public component to it, an opportunity for
public input.
Ms. Cerilli: The minister has talked at other times about
not wanting to duplicate environmental impact assessments. Why did he make the decision or why was the
decision made to split this process in two and not review the cut area and the
operation and construction of the plant at one time?
* (1500)
Mr. Cummings: To begin with, it was pretty obvious,
according to the appropriate personnel and the appropriate information that was
gathered through our Forestry department, that there was sufficient material
available, that large amounts of material that Louisiana‑Pacific might
want, i.e., poplar, are, in fact, dying out there in the forest management
area. Given that that will eventually
have to go through a process that will rigorously lay out the cutting methods,
the areas that will be left uncut, the management of the sensitive areas, the
set‑aside areas, the wildlife protection, the stream crossings and all of
those things, would be part of a licensing process, we then proceeded to deal
with the request for the plant itself, which is very local and very specific in
terms of its impact.
The fact is that we are very much in line with other
jurisdictions in terms of how these types of projects are reviewed. The forestry and the mills are not reviewed
jointly in any other jurisdiction either.
So this process is not something that is irregular or off the wall. The legitimate questions were asked early on
about availability of cut. They were
answered. The environmental impacts of
how that is going to be managed will be dealt with through the licensing
process for the cut area.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
It is an easy leap for those who want to be critical and
who want to be obstructionist in terms of development of this type of an
industry to say that you must do the licensing first and then deal with the
mill, but we have had pre‑existing licences and huge tracts of land
across the Parkland area. We have the
same sort of issue here in some respect as was raised during the parks issue
that at one time park lands were cut areas and people were assigned cut
areas. When the parks boundaries were
laid down, people viewed an opportunity
to make multidimensional, multipurpose areas to be brought under management of,
in the broadest sense, a park for specific reasons. So those harvestable areas were included
within the boundaries, but they were included fully expecting that they would,
in fact, be harvested, but that there would be another level of management that
would be applied to that area.
So I guess what I am trying to do is demonstrate that this
is not some kind of a clandestine or irregular process that we are entering
into. We fully anticipated it would be
controversial in the sense that it would create discussion because it is a new
industry, but the mill is very specific to the area of where it will sit. We are talking about a mill of which there
are some 80, I believe, or close to 80 across North America.
So this is, in fact, a system that means that in many ways
we will not be cutting some of the other trees across the country, or even in
our own province that might be cut for construction purposes, because this is a
product that can replace an awful lot of other construction materials that are
made out of other species. It strikes me
that, just as we have switched from different edible oils in the world market,
there is quite an opportunity here to switch to a different construction
product for our homes.
I have to put on the record, Mr. Deputy Chairperson,
something that I saw in relationship to the mining industry in Newfoundland,
where they put out a place mat which said, where does your home come from? On that place mat‑‑when people
are sitting there waiting for their service or waiting for someone to come back
from the washroom, undoubtedly people sit and look‑‑
An Honourable Member: Or sitting enjoying a cigarette.
Mr. Cummings: Or enjoying a cigarette, as my colleague says. I would not enjoy one, frankly, so I had
better not touch that one. I would not,
but the fact is that it talks about the number of products that come from the
mining industry.
Your basements come from a product that is mined. The stucco on the outside comes from a
product that is mined. Your electrical
wiring comes from a product that has been mined. Your plumbing very often comes from a product
that originally was mined in the raw state.
Now I think we need to talk about‑‑
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I am waiting for the
segue back. Tie this in, Mr. Minister,
please.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of
order.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: I will try and be succinct and get to the end
of my story. The fact is that I think we
need to consider, if we want to talk in the broad policy sense about where we
are headed, going into using oriented strand board as opposed to two‑by‑six,
two‑by‑four and two‑by‑twelve in the construction of
houses, then we need to consider that this may well be a very beneficial
industry in the long run.
We need to make sure that we license it properly. We need to make sure that the forestry
management aspect is properly controlled, but the fact is that we are using a
product that generally stays in the cutting zones as something that rots back
into the environment, or, where it is close to populated areas, and out
obviously away from the core area of the city of Winnipeg, huge amounts of this
material is sawed and used for stove wood.
It is not unusual, once you get away from the Perimeter, to have large
volumes of stove wood made out of poplar.
Now what we are talking about is harvesting larger amounts
of a plant that regenerates itself rather rapidly. We will have to apply a different type of
forestry management to it. We will have
to learn from other jurisdictions what happens when you harvest large numbers
of poplars out of a specific area, what is best for rejuvenation of the forest
in those areas.
It seems to me that if we still continue to have
construction made out of wood products in this country, we are either going to
start importing them from Russia, where we know that they are not cut in the
most environmentally sensitive way, where we know that they do not have the
controls on their plants that we have here.
We know that we have significant problems getting lumber shipments out
of Russia licensed so that they do not transport disease and pests, along with
the lumber into this country, that would destroy our forestry industry. We know those options are all there.
I fail to see why the member is so wound up about this that
she is not prepared to look at some of the ways that we can improve the
control, that we can manage the plant acceptably, that we can manage the
forestry management in a way that the province of Manitoba will be able to
harvest a product that is becoming very desirable in the construction
business. It is no different‑‑I
can draw another analogy right in downtown Winnipeg.
A hundred tonnes of our junk‑‑waste paper,
poor, poor pulpwood, packing crates, wooden pallets‑‑are chewed up
and made into a fairly acceptable wood pulp that becomes construction paper
that we are exporting to Florida right now at the clip of about 100 tonnes a
day to help them with their reconstruction after they were torn apart by a
series of tornadoes the last two years.
We are becoming part of a larger and more complex system, but I really
object to being constantly challenged about whether or not we can manage the
process here so that we can use the product responsibly so that we can
regenerate it, so that we can have a sustainable industry. Because Louisiana‑Pacific is bringing
all their own money to the table, does that all of a sudden mean that
government loses its control? The answer
is no.
* (1510)
Ms. Cerilli: So, in answer to my question about why the
process was split, the plant and then the cut area, one of the reasons is that
other jurisdictions do that, and the other reason is that we are becoming part
of this global market. Is that what the
minister is saying?
Mr. Cummings: No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying‑‑
Ms. Cerilli: You lost me on the story about the
mining. I am sorry.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member for
Radisson does not want to listen to my stories.
It is probably better that she listen to that story than have me read
into the record what the NDP in Saskatchewan are doing about uranium mining.
Point of Order
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): I would like to
enter into the debate, Mr. Deputy Chairperson
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point
of order.
* * *
Mr. Enns: I did not have a point of order, but I am
wondering whether I can enter into the debate and ask some questions.
An Honourable Member: No.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chair, now I do have a point.
Point of Order
Mr. Enns: A member of the Legislature has absolutely
the same amount of right and access to a minister and to the department when
considering the Estimates of that particular department, and I would like the
Chair to show me where that is not the case.
The fact that we have fallen into the practice where this has become a
solitude debate between the critic and the minister is, in my judgment, a
regrettable backsliding of what once used to be an informative debate for all
members of the Legislature.
I simply claim my right to ask some specific questions
germane to the issue before the committee right now, which has to do with how
the governments and what the responsibility the government has in determining
whether or not the resource is there in sufficient capacity to be provided for
in this particular instance, which might go to help and explain the question
that the honourable member has.
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: The honourable minister did not have a point
of order. I would advise members that at
this time, as the Minister of Agriculture has stated, we have fallen into a
practice of giving the opportunity of the critics to ask questions of the
minister. When the critics are finished
that line of questioning, if the honourable minister would like to put a
question on this line, I will give the minister that opportunity at that time.
* * *
Ms. Cerilli: I was trying to get some clarification of why
the department and the minister chose to separate the two areas to be assessed
under The Environment Act, the plant construction and operation and the cut
allocation. In his answer he referred to
other jurisdictions not doing anything differently to what we are doing
here. That concerns me because this
government brought in Bill 49 a couple of sessions ago, I think it was, and I
want to ask the minister if Bill 49, the amendments to The Environment Act that
allowed for the phasing in or the staging of licensing, is going to be
necessary or affect this development?
Mr. Cummings: This is not a phased licence. This is a mill licence, and the forestry
operations will be licensed as well.
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, then his answer is‑‑well,
the minister referenced product leaving the province. I would like to ask the minister if he can
tell the committee if the proposal from this new company includes an indication
of where the product will be used‑‑if it will be supplied locally
in Manitoba or if it will be leaving the province‑‑and if we have
some sense of the percentages at this stage.
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, there is certainly
nothing that I am aware of that binds the area of sale. Market will certainly dictate that,
however. This province is notorious for
importing B.C. fir, and I would think that the member is not likely‑‑and
perhaps she would like to edify me, but I do not think the member is
encouraging the use of further elimination of the B.C. fir because that is
where some of the most concern is being raised right now about the cutting of
some of the majestic fir in B.C.
In fact, Manitoba has encouraged the development of
constructed building materials as a way of using, and it has increasingly
grown, not just through this process but through forerunners of this process in
B.C. and other places, where material that was once burned off as waste and
used for heat in their drying process, is now being put back into chipboard and
particle board and those types of materials, which provide very acceptable
building materials using what would normally be waste.
Of course, once you get past the view of some, and I do not
agree with this view, but there are a lot of people who view poplar and treat
them as waste because they are interspersed with other softwoods out there;
they are not always harvested. This
provides an opportunity to take pressure off buying some of the long grain
planks that have been available from cutting larger and older trees.
So I think I would have to answer that there is nothing
that I am aware of that binds the market except that certainly the further you
ship it the more expensive it is going to be, so we Manitoba should have an
advantage price‑wise on product.
Ms. Cerilli: One of the concerns that was expressed to me
was that some of the local people logging in that area are supplying local
markets. Does the minister have any way
of clarifying if there will be any disruption, based on this proposal, of that
relationship?
Mr. Cummings: I am not aware of the details of the forestry
licensing, or forestry cutting permits that some of the local operators have,
except that I am aware of the issue and I am aware that every effort is being
made, and I think successfully, to make sure that the traditional local
operations continue.
But there is a case in point that I referred to earlier
that needs to be put in the context of this question, and that is that there
were a number of people who act as small cutters‑‑and I am not sure
if it is one of them the member is referring to or not. There have been a number of situations where
a number of smaller allocations were made and they were not priced. That means that the public was absorbing the
cost of reforestation, et cetera, and obviously, as we have a better and more
elaborate forestry and licensing process, those private and small cutting
operations‑‑not the private ones, pardon me, but the smaller
cutting operations‑‑are seeking assurances from DNR and have been
assured that they will not be adversely affected by this.
There was a short period of uncertainty. I am not sure of just the exact period, but
it was about three months ago at least in that time period when there was
considerable uncertainty and anxiety on the part of those operators, and I
believe that that has been, to a large degree, addressed.
* (1520)
Ms. Cerilli: I want to get back to the issue of the impact
assessment. I am wondering if the
minister can tell the committee, how long did Repap operate in that area
without having a licence authorized from a public environmental impact
assessment?
Mr. Cummings: They have always had a forestry licence. They have received environmental licensing on
specific processes, and I am not sure that I can answer the question.
Ms. Cerilli: I will wait for the minister to consult with
his staff.
Mr. Cummings: It is the time part of it that I do not think
I can answer. It does not mean that they
have been operating uncontrolled. It
means that they have been operating within their original five‑year plan,
and those have been extended.
Ms. Cerilli: But they were operating for some period
without a cut licence that had been reviewed through an environment impact
assessment in the public process. Is
that correct?
Mr. Cummings: I think what the member is probably getting
at is that she wants to know, has there been a full‑blown Clean
Environment Commission review and licensing of the Repap cutting area? The forestry licensing has always been
handled as forestry licensing, and there has been environmental input into
bridge or river crossings and streams in that sort of situation. Repap, for a short period of time, has
operated on renewals. There was, I
think, one brief period when there was no renewal, but I am not sure they even
did any cutting at that point or how much.
Ms. Cerilli: How does the environmental impact assessment
process estimate the value of forests in their natural state that would be used
to maintain soil, to provide habitat for wildlife, to ensure that there is air
quality transfer through the natural process of photosynthesis, that kind of
thing? How does the environmental impact
assessment process estimate that kind of value for the forest in the province?
Mr. Cummings: Through any licensing process and decisions
that the departments, Environment or Forestry, might make, Province of
Manitoba, we have developed a biodiversity strategy; we have developed a
forestry strategy, which, if the member is perhaps more familiar with the water
strategy and the land‑use strategy for the province, lays out principles
and guidelines, the underlying concepts that need to be applied, makes sure
decisions fit within those parameters.
You are asking me, do they put a dollar‑and‑cent
price tag on it? I would suggest that is
probably only done in a relative sense.
I think the member is asking a question that really is a macro question,
if you will, and if the member wants to debate in that respect, I guess I am
more than prepared to enter into it because we can also debate the energy that
is required to bring sheathing that is made out of fir logs from B.C. What is the cost of freighting that in
here? How much energy is destroyed by
bringing that in here if we do not use our own local product?
We could argue about, why do you import bananas? Why do we not use all Manitoba‑produced
product, oatmeal and steak and eggs in the morning, rather than import fruit
from outside of the country? It has a
whole lot to do with consumers looking at affordable products, and when you
talk about, is there a demand for this product, it is obviously enormously in
demand.
When we look at a forestry issue, obviously it becomes part
of the protection of the biodiversity, the reforestation issues that are
associated with it. There is no question
that the area that is cut will be somewhat altered, as are the urban areas of
this province somewhat altered from their former pristine state. [interjection]
Well, the member is laughing. It is all
right to sit here in the Legislature and talk about the environment that is in
my back yard, but it is not all right to sit here and talk about what we see
out the window.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the minister is
getting all excited about what I think is possibly a misunderstanding. I did not mean to laugh at the minister's
answer. We know that the urban environment
is very altered‑‑
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The honourable member did not have a point of
order. It is clearly a dispute over the
facts.
* * *
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I was not intending
to antagonize the member, although I admit to perhaps poking a little fun at
her, for which I apologize, by the way.
The fact is that, to be very specific, if the member asked
me, do we apply a dollar‑and‑cent value, the answer is no. If there are broader issues that are part of
the consideration, they are, I think, as I stated, within the policies on
biodiversity, on forestry, on land use; and, certainly, even water policies and
water quality ultimately end up being impacted.
In fact, that might be the first place you would feel the impacts if we
do not manage a lot of our forestry issues correctly.
Ms. Cerilli: This was somewhat of a technical
question. The minister has mentioned
biodiversity, that there is policy in the province that we must maintain some
integrity for biodiversity. What I am
asking is, how does the environmental impact assessment evaluate that and
estimate that?
We know that our economy does not have economic indicators
that value the trees before they are cut down, for example, in a dollar‑and‑cent
way, so I am not asking for that. I am
asking for the minister to let us know how the government decides how much
biodiversity we must maintain in a certain region, how much forest, for
example, we need to maintain sufficient air quality and we are not going to
compromise soil and we are going to maintain a certain amount in a given area
for habitat for wildlife, all those kinds of issues, as well as the one that
the minister raised with respect to the importance of forests in terms of water.
We know that there are natural values that the forest has,
and what we are trying to do is not compromise that to such an extent that we
are going to prevent future generations from benefiting in the way that we have
and our forefathers and foremothers have.
I would just ask the minister to clarify how the process that we are
involved with in environmental impact assessment is going to make that
determination.
I realize that there are policies through the Endangered
Spaces Campaign, which have targeted 12 percent of all the ecoregions in the
province to be protected. That is what
we are striving for. We know that there
are still a lot of concerns about the tools that we have to protect those areas
in the province. So all of those issues
do come into play, but just to come back to the key element of my question, how
does the environmental impact assessment do this so that we have value placed
on our forests in their natural state?
* (1530)
Mr. Cummings: Well, I suppose my answer will probably be unsatisfactory,
but it is part of what is undertaken through the process of an environmental
assessment.
I believe there might be a philosophical difference between
what actually happens and what the member perhaps is seeking. I would assume she is saying that the
pristine original condition of the area is the objective that must be the
primary objective. I would have to say,
if you are going to harvest in an area, you are not going to be able to achieve
that objective. Therefore, the assessment must look at the protection of
appropriate biodiversity. It must look
at protection of sensitive areas. It
must look at protection of the waterways and habitat in and around them, and it
must look at what the long‑term reforestation policies might be, the
protection of wilderness aspects of areas.
Again, I have to say, and I mean this in the most collegial
way, not to be offensive, but I think there is a tremendous misunderstanding
between a lot of people who live in an urban setting, as opposed to those who live
in a rural area who are, and particularly in this area, already out in the bush
trails cutting on some of the small allocated areas. They are already out there cutting for fence
posts and for rails and for logs. They
are already out there guiding people.
They are already out there hunting and fishing and doing all the things
that they see as a natural part of their area.
To some extent, when we approach the forestry people in the Swan River
and the Duck Mountain areas, it is a bit‑‑I think an analogy would
be the same as going out on some of the flat prairie land around Portage la
Prairie and saying, gee, you do not have a forest here anymore. Well, they did not have a forest in the first
place.
These folks are used to forestry practices, are used to
dealing with the issues of forestry and reforestation. I think what we need is a calmer debate
around the issues of whether or not popular‑‑and I do not mean this
particular discussion, I am talking about the shrillness of the debate in the
broadest sense, where we have a large segment of the public that is in some
respects being agitated and inflamed by things that some of us in the
Legislature are saying.
I think we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about
the approach that we are taking toward dealing with this industry and
others. We are scaring the hell out of
people, to put it bluntly. Should that
be the approach that is taken by responsible leaders in this province, or
should we approach it in a reasonable sense that says: Can this operation be controlled, can public
health be protected and can the harvesting be managed in an environmentally
compatible manner, given that we all agree‑‑I think we all agree on
all sides of this table‑‑that there very likely is no question
about the volumes of hardwood, i.e., poplars, that are available out there?
I am really pleading with the member across the way, if she
has any influence with those who are raising fears about this issue, that we
get away from raising fears and talk directly about what the issues are. The issues are the operation‑‑can
the plant be regulated appropriately till it operates safely and can the
forestry be managed in such a way that we protect it for the sustainable future
of our youth?
I do not mean to imply that the member at this particular
moment has done or said something unwise.
I am saying that I would like to take the debate to a different level.
Ms. Cerilli: I have not bought a hat or a button for
anybody up there. I do not know if that
is the thing the minister is referring to, but I think that that is the kind of
activity that is escalating the debate.
All that I think a number of people are trying to do is get the
information out to the public about what is going to create sustainable
forestry in the region; that is what I am interested in. I am interested in making sure that we are
going to have a sustainable forestry practice in this province.
I do not know if we have been very good at doing that in
all areas of the province up to now. I
am concerned about areas that are going to be protected in that region. It is not an all‑or‑nothing
thing. I am not saying that there should
not be any trees cut down in Manitoba or in that region, but I think we have to
ensure that there is going to be caution exercised. What I think we are trying to do here is
trying to see what the government's definition and approach to sustainable
forestry and licensing is going to be, how that is going to be licensed. I think it is regrettable some of the
activities that have gone on up there.
I would just like to inform the minister that I do not know
if he is involved with any of the activities that have involved me and my name
being used in publications that I did not produce, and my photograph being put
on publications I did not produce, but I have also been, I think, maligned
through all of this extensively, both by the government and by other parties; I
am not sure who they are. So I just want
to clarify that for the minister, that I think that a lot of the antagonism
that has occurred has not been on the side that the minister has referred to or
puts me on. I think that we have been
quite responsible.
One final thing I want to ask the minister with respect to
this area is, how does he feel‑‑I do not know if he has seen this
magazine. I am not sure of the date on
the magazine, but it is the Earthkeeper Magazine. It is a magazine put out, I believe, by the
Canadian Environmental Network. I could
be wrong; I am not sure about that.
The magazine focuses on Canadian forestry, and it has a
rundown of all the provinces and where they stand. The magazine claims that the largest cut
allocation in Canada, and possibly in the world, exists in Manitoba; that we
have one of the worst records on reforestation; and that we have the lowest
stumpage fees in the country. This is, I
think, a concern.
I would ask the minister if he wants to clarify any of
those claims that have been made in that magazine, and what his attitude is to
those claims?
Mr. Cummings: Well, first of all, the Repap cutting area
largely assumed the cutting area that was provided by the predecessors of the
member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) when this area was managed under the Manfor
cutting rights. It was not granted
anything untoward to Repap in relationship to what was there before, which was,
by the way, sucking some quarter of a billion dollars annually out of the
Manitoba economy.
I recognize that it was predecessors of my era that also
were involved in the original concepts, but certainly when you have something
that is going down the toilet year after year financially in recent years, it
was obviously demonstrating that it could not be run all that well unless
private enterprise had an opportunity to bring to bear some very tough decision‑making
processes. In the interim, we ended up
with something like a $13‑million environmental liability at the site.
In the accusations about what cutting areas are being made
available, maybe the member might reflect on the fact that there are 28 mills
in Ontario, 50 in Quebec, and I do not know how many in B.C. Manitoba has two mills. It does happen that one of them has access to
a large area, but remember we are talking about a northern area where your
rejuvenation is slower, where the yield per acre is probably obviously
different, and that really points out to where we have a lot of capability to
restrict access to certain areas, to eliminate access to others, and to make
sure that in the end the forest management practices are acceptable.
* (1540)
In reference to stumpage fees, it should be pointed out
that the agreement that was signed with Repap is one of the most proactive and
encompassing reforestation agreements with any cutting company in Canada, if
not in North America, where we are requiring livability at seven years of age
of the replant area. That is a very
significant advancement for the protection of reforestation in this province,
but I think, as with other jurisdictions, we can always do more in terms of
reforestation.
There is another aspect that I find frustrating, and it has
to do with reforestation and access to cutting, which need to be put into
perspective as well. We are being
questioned here today to put into perspective reforestation, cutting
restrictions, licensing. Does anybody
ever acknowledge‑‑those who are primarily opposed to the natural
forest harvesting processes‑‑the enormous damage that is done by
fire? I had an opportunity to look
through‑‑and one of the reasons that forestry management practices
can be adjusted, in fact, to reduce the incidence of fires is to simply
recognize the fact that where you have a high percentage of deadfall, if a fire
ever gets started, it will take everything out.
If ever the member for Radisson (Ms. Cerilli) would like to
come with me on a tour of some of the burnt‑out areas, particularly in
the Pine Falls area and some of the ones further north that I have not yet
seen, the ones that I have seen where there has been a burnt‑out area, it
is absolutely devastated compared to what the area looks like where it has been
cut over. The reason is that some of
these areas are on very fragile lands, and if you get a hot enough fire, there
is not even any lichen left on top of the rocks for reforestation to begin. It will take, in my view‑‑and I
have spent all my life dealing with nature, but I am not necessarily a forester‑‑it
seems to me that it is pretty easy to show that reforestation is going to take
longer on some of those burnt‑out areas.
So there is other input that goes into forest management
licences that takes into consideration those types of concerns, or certainly
those who are promoting the management of the forestry should be talking about
those things, the set‑aside around certain areas that are unique or along
rivers. In fact, there might be some
question raised about whether those should be better managed. Better managed does not just mean leaving
them alone, because if you get a high percentage of deadfall in that area and a
fire in it, all of a sudden you will destroy it completely.
So there is that type of consideration that we never see
much debate around this table on, and I think that is an aspect that needs to
be brought forward occasionally. I am
not saying that it is the primary factor that should be considered in
restructuring reforestation requirements or in managing cutting areas, but once
you are into a situation where the environment in some of these areas has been
altered, then one should not always assume that it is altered in a way that it
is going to be permanently negatively impacted.
It might, in fact, be altered, but it might not always be in a negative
way.
Ms. Cerilli: I just want to pursue this once more. By the way, I have canoed through burnt‑out
areas, and I know that it certainly is disappointing when you canoe for five
days and you end up in a burn you did not know was there. I have had that experience. I also know, though, that with a burn being a
natural occurrence in a forest there are differences between a burnt‑out
area and a clear‑cut area, but I do not want to get into that too much.
I just want to ask the minister if he is aware of the name
of the company that was operating in the Manfor cut area prior to Manfor being
there. It was a private company. I think it was authorized under a
Conservative government to operate, and I cannot recall right now the name of
that company, but I know there were a lot of environmental problems related to
their operation. I think we want to come
away from that era of forestry, and I think we have to come away from that era
of forestry quite quickly. There is a
lot of onus on governments currently to be forward looking.
I want to ask the minister if he has seen the current bill
in the B.C. Legislature, the environmental assessment act, Bill 29? I have a copy with me right now. Earlier, the minister was referencing the
fact that other jurisdictions in the country do not jointly review forest
operations with the cut and the plant at the same time. It is quite frightening, I think, to understand
that B.C., with all the controversy and the extensive forestry that have gone
on in that province, has been without an act that in a consolidated way deals
with environmental impact assessment on forestry practices.
I am wondering if the minister would review this bill, and
if the department would consider doing a comparison between the British
Columbia proposed environmental impact assessment and the one that exists in
Manitoba? I do have a number of other
questions related to the process, but I am going to move from the process with
respect to this forestry area right now and just pass over to my Liberal
colleague. I think she also has some
questions on this topic, but I just ask for the minister to respond to my
question first.
Mr. Cummings: I am not totally familiar with the amendments. I think I have a copy on my desk actually,
but nevertheless, I understand that they sought out and actually followed our
process a fair bit in the amendments of their act.
I am not sure it specifically refers to the review of
forestry under that act, but we try very much to keep abreast of what is going
on in other jurisdictions. I continue‑‑in
fact, it is maybe my former deputy who helped write‑‑one of the
ones who helped review the draft act the member is referring to, so I do not
think it is too incompatible with the act we have here.
Ms. Cerilli: Just to ask the question again, I mean, would
the department consider doing some kind of comparison between Manitoba's act
and the B.C. act, or maybe this has been done, and we just have to get the information
with other jurisdictions?
I think, for the point of clarification, this looks to me
like an environmental assessment act that stands on its own. It is not an amendment to their environment
act or any other act. I think it is a
separate act.
Mr. Cummings: Yes, that is correct, but I would also point
out that we review these changes. It is
not unusual for one jurisdiction to look at what another one is doing and
follow, but Manitoba is not out of step and, in fact, in many respects is
considered to be quite advanced in the environmental assessment review process
that we have.
I would have to say, however, in the same breath that there
are a lot of jurisdictions out there that are looking to make their process
more accessible. That is one of the
criticisms of ours, that it is somewhat complicated. There are proponents out there who feel our
process is a little baffling when they go up against it, so it speaks very much
to the type of approach which we have taken, which is a sustainable development
approach with the potential of a sustainable development act at some time in
the future.
* (1550)
We have undertaken to do a very detailed review in that
respect largely outside of individual departments to see where better alignment
of the responsibilities on different departmental responsibilities, different
acts, different boards and commissions, where there can be a better aligning of
the process so the decision‑making process is complete and strong but not
necessarily as confusing as ours can be at times.
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): I have had quite an education in the last
hour and a half, and I have just a few questions coming out of some of the
issues.
We had the opportunity to meet with people from Louisiana‑Pacific,
I believe it was in early May, and questioned them on how confident they felt
about investing $80 million in a plant without an ongoing guarantee of access
to sufficient wood to maintain this plant.
We also received the little package they had put out and in
here it makes it clear that they are requiring approximately 900,000 cubic
metres of logs to keep the plant operating at full operation. They also say in here that they are going to
be taking over the cutting rights that have already been granted to Repap. In fact, the quote says: The agreement calls for Louisiana‑Pacific
to harvest hardwood such as poplar in the forest area previously licensed to
Repap. It goes on to say: Repap will retain the right to harvest or
purchase softwoods such as spruce and pine.
Then the final statement: The
agreement includes the repatriation of some of the Repap timber rights.
What are they implying there by repatriation? Do you know?
Mr. Cummings: That means that the province takes back the
licence, not the licence, the rights.
(Mr. Bob Rose, Acting
Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair)
I think, without the member having asked the question, the
earlier part of her comment about the ability to access softwoods when
hardwoods are being harvested, et cetera, I guess as an old farmer I do not
inherently see anything wrong with that.
If they are accessing an area and there are appropriate softwoods
available‑‑sometimes we are talking about mixed stands‑‑and
does not impact the method of cutting or method of harvest or the requirements
on the environment licence, it probably means, however, there is a little less
wastage.
As I understand, in cutting processes, to a large extent
poplar might be wasted and trampled during the cutting of softwoods;
conversely, you could end up with the reverse situation. It also has a lot to do with sizing. Right now we have companies that cheerfully
refer to themselves as scavengers who went in and took out what was considered
undesirable material for pulpwood and/or for perhaps this system. Of course, now, with modern ability to
harvest, the sizing is not as critical as it used to be for either pulping or
for oriented strand board construction, although there is certainly still
minimum sizes required. I do not see
anything profoundly wrong with any of the comments that you just reported.
Ms. McCormick: Actually, I was not trying to imply that
there was anything wrong at this point, but I did want to understand clearly
that if you are taking a clear‑cut approach in a mixed stand, then you
are going to have the Repap people potentially purchasing the felled softwoods
that were taken during Louisiana‑Pacific's endeavour to harvest the
hardwood. Is this correct?
Mr. Cummings: I think that is the case, yes.
Ms. McCormick: That being said, I was interested in
discovering what kinds of volumes were to be transferred with respect to annual
allowable cut. The best information I
can find is from the 1991 five‑year forestry plan which indicates that
there are, I believe, five forestry units which are the subject of discussion
with respect to the transfer of rights.
Forestry units 11 and 13, 13 being the largest one and containing the
area to be logged in the Duck Mountain Provincial Park and the Roaring and
Shell Rivers.
When you add up the five units, being 11, 13, 12 and 14 and
then 10, the total annual allowable cut is 439, which represents about half of
what would be the annual requirement for the plant.
We had questioned Louisiana‑Pacific on whether there
would be sufficient wood coming from the transfer of cutting rights, and they
told us that there was no problem because there was going to be some other
substandard wood available to them and also some private quota holders who
would contribute.
I was shocked when I actually got into the numbers to find
out that what they are going to have to scavenge for is more than half of what
they have as an annual requirement.
Actually, there is one other factor here. Apparently, Louisiana‑Pacific will also
have rights to forestry unit 43 in the Interlake. I do not have any idea of what 43 has by way
of an annual allowable cut, but is it envisioned that the addition of 43 is
sufficient to bring it up to the 900,000 amount that is required for the
operation of the plant?
Mr. Cummings: I am not too sure that I am equipped to
answer the question. I would certainly
take the question as notice and perhaps the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Driedger) would take it as notice for his Estimates. I suspect that the figures the member quotes
are impacted by two or three different things.
One is that there may be private material available.
There may be material available from other areas that have
not been referenced, i.e., Saskatchewan, but there may also be something not
quite right about those figures that the member sees could be related to what
is considered quantifiable for saw logs and what might be available other than
that. But I cannot answer the question.
Ms. McCormick: That was the other part of my question. The annual allowable cut expressed in cubic
metres, it is not clear whether that is for both hardwood and softwood.
Mr. Cummings: We could take a stab at the answer, but I
would sooner that we ask Natural Resources to provide precisely what that means
so that there is no confusion or misinformation.
Ms. McCormick: I guess that brings me to my question about
the wisdom of going for a two‑part licence then, if some of these
questions remain unanswered. It is not
apparently evident that the current cutting licences or annual allowable cut as
they are now described will be sufficient, and if in fact it will require a
doubling of the allowable cut, then it sort of begs the question about how we
could get this far in the process without having the answers to these
questions.
Mr. Cummings: The member is attempting to characterize my
answer as saying the information is not available. It is not available in my particular memory
bank or with the staff that I have with me precisely to answer that question,
but I have no hesitancy in saying that we were provided with the details that
indicated that there will be a million cubic metres of harvestable material
available for them, and I am pretty certain that those answers can be answered
much more precisely by Natural Resources.
That is where the forestry expertise lies within government, and it is
not duplicated in the Department of Environment. It does not mean we do not have some
capability to analyze what they bring forward, but the specifics of your
question, I would ask that you inquire of Natural Resources or we will take it
as notice and have them provide the answer.
* (1600)
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, yes, perhaps,
as I will also be participating in the Natural Resources Estimates, it would
facilitate that process if you would advise them that I will be questioning in
this area.
The other aspect, though, does relate to your department,
and that is something that my colleague from Radisson has already raised. Repap's cutting rights were in fact granted
prior to or without a requirement for an environmental impact assessment. Would it be your plan, when the question of the
forestry licensing comes up with Louisiana‑Pacific, to require an EIA on
the forest use?
Mr. Cummings: The area is licensed on a renewable basis
today. As soon as we have their long‑range
plans in hand, we will do a complete assessment.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, when we met with
Louisiana‑Pacific in the same meeting in which we questioned them about
the wisdom of proceeding on this construction without the guarantees, they
indicated one reason that they did not wish to go into the double‑stream
licensing process was because they would be required to produce a 10‑year
forestry management plan and they would not have the time to do adequate work
in that area or to do justice to a proper plan in the time line that they had
set for themselves to go through the approval process for the plant. At that point in time, I questioned them on
what was involved in producing‑‑or what they envisioned their 10‑year
plan to include and was not clear from their answers as to what they
envisioned.
Do you believe that Louisiana‑Pacific understands
that there is an environmental impact assessment potentially to be required of
them in that second process?
Mr. Cummings: Yes. I
suppose the short answer is that we will tell them what they will be expected to
produce. In other words, the guidelines
will be laid down. It does not mean we
will do it for them. It means that we
will lay down the guidelines on which they will have to produce the information
to meet.
It was probably fairly candid on their part to respond in
that manner, but it does not mean that we have somehow lost control of the
process. We, in fact, have issued them
now I think the initial guidelines‑‑pardon me, I got one jump ahead
of where we are actually at. We have
given them the Abitibi guidelines to look at as an example of what they will be
expected to deal with. We have not
issued the guidelines for that area.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chair, if I understand
correctly then, depending on the outcome of the hearings to deal with
construction of the plant‑‑what would you anticipate to be the time
line for engaging Louisiana‑Pacific in the preparation of the forestry
management plan?
Mr. Cummings: I would guess that Abitibi and Repap were
both examples of where it takes a lot of time up front to get going. We anticipate that they will have a year or a
year and a half's worth of work to do.
We will be issuing the guideline‑‑we will be engaging them
in getting started on that within a matter of months.
Ms. McCormick: So I am hearing you then to say that within
one to one and a half years, it is likely that they will be, if not able to
produce the plan, at least actively in the process of producing one.
Mr. Cummings: Well, actually, our expectations were a
little higher than that. We expect that
they would have something pretty complete by that time, bearing in mind that‑‑not
from a regulatory point of view, but from an overall point of view, I think we
have to acknowledge that these are ongoing plans.
As I understand the way forestry management plans evolve,
they need to be changed and updated regularly.
You cannot predict where a burn might show up or other reasons‑‑drought. Very often plans change if insects have moved
into an area. All those things can
require changing in a plan.
Nevertheless, they will have to do a pretty detailed plan, overall plan
in the first year or 18 months.
Ms. McCormick: Yes, I think what I was trying to get at here
was that my concern arises from the identification of cutting rights to less
than half of what they would need. It
seems to me that if that is going to become a problem, better it should become
evident sooner rather than later, given that Mother Nature may also have
something to say about what is cutable and what not.
I guess the last area of questioning I would like to go
into is with respect to a commitment to an overall forest strategy and as it
relates back to the cutting in provincial parks and provincial forests. At this point in time, it is my understanding
that only 8 percent of the Duck Mountain area is actually protected from
cutting rights and that the licence transferred from Repap to Louisiana‑Pacific,
particularly with respect to forestry unit 13, allows for a cut of 265,500
cubic metres coming out of the Duck Mountain Provincial Park. Secondly, the concern is for the FU 14, which
allows for 84,500 cubic metres and is in the Porcupine Provincial Forest.
Can you tell me what you know of your department's
involvement in the development of a forestry strategy for Manitoba and
specifically with respect to your department's position with respect to logging
in provincial parks and designated forestry areas?
Mr. Cummings: I guess I would like to take a minute to
answer this, because something that always is a bit of a rub for me is that
when Abitibi had its forestry licences removed from Atikaki, what happened was
there was a lot of self‑congratulation and credit taken for moving it out
of there, but it was moved into another park.
I have to go back to my other statement that I made
earlier, which is that areas that were anticipated and were designated
harvesting areas‑‑and in many cases have already been harvested
once; that is how pioneers in that area made a living, frankly‑‑they
supplied my area with building material, and other parts of the province. They were always considered cutting
areas. I do not blame the member for
putting it in this context, but I always bristle when someone does, because
while they are in parks, they were always designated cutting areas. Therefore, the criticism we always receive
that we are allowing cutting in parks, we are one of the few areas in the
country that ended up with these multiple‑use designations.
* (1610)
The Department of Environment has a significant degree of
input through, I guess there is a tack involved in terms of the development of
the Special Places program. Certainly,
we were not the lead department in all aspects.
Forestry, I think, took the lead for obvious reasons on forest
management, but the Department of Environment is part of all of these
strategies basically because they are environmentally‑‑there is an
environmental impact on each of them.
I will have to acknowledge that I do not know how many
staff or who was assigned except that I see the work coming out the other end
through the Sustainable Development Committee of Cabinet and through the round
table, and developing all of these strategies really speaks to the fact you
need a multidimensional and‑‑essentially, you need input from all
of the departments in order to make it work, or you are going to overlook
something to start off with, and secondly, it probably creates much better
environmental awareness in each of the other departments if they are working,
and in many cases, even as a lead, in dealing with some of the issues that you
referenced.
We have DNR working on a 20‑year forestry plan for
the province. We participate in that
plan, and there is a public process for approval of a plan for each‑‑oh,
I am sorry, that is for the park areas that I am referencing.
So I think the matter is being addressed, but it is
obviously one where there is going to be some ongoing public debate for the
reasons I mentioned earlier.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, I think that
the history lesson is valuable and I appreciate the recognition that we have
perhaps come late to the debate about whether or not there should be areas
which are considered to be sacrosanct, and again, I suppose that if we have
confidence in an overall strategy, then whether or not you allow timber stands
in things called parks or forests, provincial forests, becomes less important
so long as there is confidence that the overall forest resources are being well
managed.
I think that at this point in time, there is still some
concern in the public's mind about what the overall plan is. It will perhaps become easier for the public
to take a meaningful stand with respect to logging in provincial areas once
that whole picture is known.
That being said, the other area I was interested in
pursuing was with respect to the reissuing of some of the cutting permits to
some of the local loggers in the Parklands and the broader area. There has been some concern stated, whether
it is justified or not, that there have been permits which have been denied for
renewal in those areas, and this concern has been brought forward to us with
respect to where this fits, whether those permits are now being transferred to
other people.
No doubt this is the subject of the native claim in the
courts, so you may be constrained in terms of how much you can comment on it,
but does the department have a role in reviewing or recommending around the
smaller permits for cutting?
Mr. Cummings: Yes, the specific allocation is the
responsibility of Forestry, but the Department of Environment has input through
a local resource management approach. If
there are specific environmental issues around harvesting in one of the cutting
areas, then the Department of Environment officials would have input to deal
with that matter.
I do not mean to belabour the point, but the member
referenced whether or not there are areas of the parks that are, in fact,
sacrosanct as protected areas and there are.
There are sections‑‑and I would invite the Minister of
Agriculture (Mr. Enns) to correct me, given his experience in Natural
Resources, however, it seems to me that as a percentage of land base set aside
for parks and for permanent protection and for biodiversity protection under
Special Places that Manitoba ranks relatively well in terms of total numbers of
acres set aside as compared to those acres available.
So it is very frustrating, and I have said many times that
the unfortunate part about this is that if people are unwilling to accept the
fact that there can be a multiple‑use portion to a park, that what we
will eventually be driven to, what governments of whatever stripe will be
driven to is they will adjust park boundaries because there are certain legal
obligations involved. There are
legitimate operations that have been operating there.
I always find it a little ironic when people talk about the
pristine bounds of Wasagaming Park. My,
well not mine directly but the people in that community, our pioneers, harvested
that area heavily. It is not like as if
it is in its original pristine state. A
good portion of that part was harvested in the early settlement days of this
country.
Ms. McCormick: I know, I agree entirely with what you are
saying, and, in fact, many forests were cut to produce farmland which we now
rely on very heavily.
I think, though, the concern for the people who, in fact,
come out sounding like they are advocates for pristine wilderness, they are also now concerned about the whole
deforestation issue as it relates to other global climatic issues and those
kinds of things. That is not the
direction I would like to take this debate into, but I do think I would like to
just respond to the minister to say that we now know a lot more than we used to
know, and the important thing is not what we know but what we do with what we
know.
It was my intention in absence of my colleague from
Radisson to move beyond Swan River but before moving on to Abitibi Price which
is the other area I would like to explore with you, I just would like to take
the opportunity, as you have raised the issue of the Endangered Spaces Program,
to register a concern that has been brought forward by the World Wildlife
Federation and others with respect‑‑first of all, this is not
intended to be critical, and I think you are right that Manitoba has a national
reputation for having made the commitment early to the 12 percent or 13 percent
protection. The area of concern, though,
that remains for many people is the criteria which are being applied in the
designation of those endangered spaces and how we designate. Could you describe for me the process of
determining what criteria are applied in terms of the designation and what role
the Department of Environment has in that criteria‑setting process?
* (1620)
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, as a minister
I get several perspectives on this, as I indicated before, on some of the
sensitive areas that we deal with.
From the department's point of view, this is led by the
Department of Natural Resources. The
sustainable development co‑ordination unit has a role in it as well. We contribute any knowledge or information
that we have from our people, some of whom have their roots back in the
Department of Natural Resources, frankly, and understand the issues, I think,
fairly well. DNR is the lead department.
In terms of the criteria that were laid down, I guess
Manitoba has made its commitment based on the original criteria that were laid
down. Then there was a selection
committee or an advisory committee. I do
not remember who was on it; it really does not matter, but some observation was
made about, Manitoba was not moving quickly enough or had not moved to meet its
obligations.
(Mr. Deputy Chairperson
in the Chair)
We brought, I believe, Monte Hummel and his advisory
people, asked them to come back and meet again with the appropriate people in
government. My memory is a little foggy
here, because this occurred a while ago.
As I recall, the overall flavour of the discussion was that we
understood what would be accepted as designated areas under the Endangered
Spaces. For a short time there was a
disagreement between them and our province as to what met that criteria. That has now been resolved as I understand
it. In fact, it has been agreed that we
met their criteria as envisaged. I think
that kind of gave us a big shot upwards again in what is recognized as areas
that we have set aside appropriately.
Interestingly enough, one of the things that is probably
the hardest to find in Manitoba‑‑mind you, we are not totally a
prairie province or never were‑‑is pristine tall grass
prairie. That is, generally speaking,
some of your prime agricultural land. It
is all very difficult to find. There is
11 percent that might be available anymore.
The fact was that not each province was required to come up with the
total quota.
There may be other jurisdictions in the country that can
come up with good examples or larger volumes of examples of that, but Manitoba
has large areas that are very acceptable to be set aside. I have not been involved in any discussion in
the last three or four months, but I think the process is fairly well
advanced. I could, in fact, get the
member more information on that if she is interested.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chair, I would just be interested
in knowing when this breakthrough occurred.
It will help me to see if the timing is after I met with the World
Wildlife Federation and the Endangered Spaces Campaign people who, at the point
of that meeting, were in fact still registering concern.
Mr. Cummings: I will get up‑to‑date information
for the member, but as I recall there is some disagreement out there among some
of the naturalists and conservation groups with Mr. Hummel in whether or not
the criteria that he laid down were the appropriate ones.
But I think, as I understand the discussion, there was some
concern about what criteria should be applied to indigenous uses of the land. It strikes me that is one that should be able
to be settled appropriately.
I think there was also some disagreement over what
flexibility should be allowed within the legislation for uses of the land. There were three. Mining was one of the uses that could not be
allowed, and there were a couple of other uses that were certainly not to
occur. But beyond that, it was always
our view that there should be some flexibility allowed within the designation.
I understand that Mr. Hummel is in agreement with us. We might not agree with some of the advocacy
groups out there, however.
Ms. McCormick: I am prepared now to move on beyond Louisiana‑Pacific
and ask for some information on the progress of the transfer of the ownership
of the mill at Abitibi‑Price to its new ownership and for an update on
the plans to bring that mill operation within the guidelines.
Mr. Cummings: Again, I might not be the best one to ask
these questions of, although by all of the other implications that Environment
has with this area, I have some information about the process.
I cannot speak directly to the financing aspect of it. Financing will have to be in place obviously,
or it will not go. However, there are a
lot of expectations that are hanging on the refinancing and the reconstruction,
if you will, of the mill out there.
Almost all of the expenditures early on are environmentally related,
which makes it good news for us from a regulatory point of view. I think it typifies the argument that if you
operate in an environmentally sound way, you will be operating efficiently.
There are a lot of efficiencies that they can bring to the
mill which result from improvement of their environmental management of the
mill. Just improving their wood room, of
course, may not be part of that, but in improving their wood room they are also
going to improve an awful lot of other things that they do plus they expect to
be able to continue to be competitive to sell into the American markets, so
they need a high percentage of recyclable content. That is good news that they are considering
construction in that area. But the very
first investments, as I understand it, will be directly related to
environmental improvement.
By the way, I have not seen anything and I do not know if
forestry has anything that would contradict this, but it seems to me that their
forestry management practices, generally speaking, have not been in
question. They have a reasonably good
record of reforestation and management of their cuts. They have done some rejigging of how they
cut. They experimented with a number of
things trying different methods of preservation of habitat, different
configurations of some of their cut areas that would enhance and/or improve the
long‑range viability of the regeneration, whether it is natural
regeneration or replant.
* (1630)
Point of view of licensing, they will soon be presenting us
with their environmental impact assessment, as I understand it. Federal extension was given re The Fisheries
Act. They now have about a year and a
half left to meet those regulations, and our requirements will be compatible
with the federal regulations. We now
have the forestry stakeholder committee in place which was an outstanding issue
from the original licensing process based on the fact that while it was under
appeal, I did not appoint that committee.
That has now been settled.
Ms. McCormick: The letter which sets out the membership for
the SAC went out with a reply date by the 27th of May to have organizations
indicate their representation. To your
knowledge, has the SAC been fully named in terms of the individuals?
Mr. Cummings: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I think we are
waiting on a few that had to have an organization meeting before they could
nominate their people. We are not going
to preclude them if they do not have it to us, but we wanted a fairly quick
turnaround so that a meeting could be held.
Ms. McCormick: I would like to ask a question with respect
to a section of Abitibi‑Price's annual report in a section called
environmental compliance. It says, other
than with respect to the Stephenville and Pine Falls mill, the company has
obtained extensions of the dates by which the company must comply with new
federal effluent discharge regulations from the end of 1993 to 1995. It goes on to say, the company believes that
a similar extension will be granted with respect to an application regarding
the Pine Falls mill. In order to provide
an opportunity to implement and assess the effectiveness of newly developed
technologies and improve the competitiveness of its mill, the company is
seeking a further two‑year extension to the end of 1997 for certain of
its mills.
Do you know if Pine Falls is one of the mills that is
requesting an extension of the federal government deadlines to 1997?
Mr. Cummings: They presently have a two‑year
extension. I do not think they are going
beyond that, but I do not know. To the
end of what period, do we know? I am
told that, in fact, the extension includes the fact that they must have
indicated the purchase of certain equipment within a couple of months of this
date, and so they are about 18 months away from being at the end of the
extension that they presently have. I am
not aware of them having applied further.
The two‑year extension must have been granted since that report
was compiled. It was granted early this
year, I believe.
Ms. McCormick: If I can interpret your answer then, your
understanding is that the original extension which took them beyond 1993 to the
end of 1995 is sufficient and that a further two‑year extension is not
being contemplated, or at least to your knowledge, not being contemplated.
Mr. Cummings: I think there is some confusion about the
term "original extension."
This is the first extension. They
did not get an extension of the extension, if I understand your question
correctly. I know that likely this is in
the context of other mills having received extensions earlier and then told
they could not meet it. Because Pine
Falls was being considered for closure by Abitibi, they probably did not have
any reason to apply for an extension. I
believe the extension has been applied for since there has become more clarity
to the employee buy out.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I would ask if the
minister would be willing to assist me in getting clarification on this. You might have more success than I would
determining the intentions of the company.
Clearly, what I am asking is whether or not they intend to
meet the federal effluent discharge regulations by the end of 1995.
Mr. Cummings: Well, I do not want to precommit myself or
the company to something that I misunderstand, but candidly at this juncture,
it is my understanding that it is their intention to meet that deadline. I would be the first to indicate that I know
that sometimes with construction and environmental improvements, those
deadlines might be awfully hard to meet.
It has everything to do with the ability of the new company
to get its money together and get on with the job. If they get their financing together and start
moving appropriately, there is a great deal of commitment on the part of the
employees out there to make this work.
They know that they are on a short leash, because every dollar they
invest has to start bringing them back something or it will be a lost dollar.
Ms. McCormick: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in fact, I think that
is why this is so important to Manitobans, as we understand that the provincial
money going into this is for compliance, and if the money that has been
appropriated for this activity is not sufficient to ensure compliance, first of
all, and, secondly, within the time lines that are expected, then I think it is
important that we know that.
So all I am asking is for you to check out the point and
humour me and get back with an answer.
Mr. Cummings: It is the balance of the money, I guess, that
I was referring to and their ability to have that on the line at the same
time. Yes, we are watching, and we will
make a note of it. It may take me a
little while to respond, but we will respond.
Mr. Enns: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, just for my own
interest and understanding and perhaps that of the members of the committee,
much has been made of the separation of the two environmental processes, one
with respect to the mill and the other with the forestry management plan and
access to that.
I think it needs to be put on the record that by
legislation and by law, the environment shop is not the agency that has the
responsibility to determine such matters as available cut or the availability
of the resource. That determination,
quite frankly, is the specific legislative authority of the director of
forestry in the Department of Natural Resources, much like the responsibility
of the director of fisheries to determine what is sustainable harvest out of a
particular lake, Lake Winnipeg in terms of fish quantities, or the director of
wildlife in terms of setting sustainable hunting regulations and so forth. I know that the impression is being left that
the environmental process, which will later deal with the forestry question,
that how can that be? How would the
company commit or invest significant dollars if that is still an open question?
* (1640)
It should be clearly understood that the availability of
the product is not an open question. That
determination of the forestry resources has already been made. That determination has been made by the
director of forestry. What is very much
open to question is whether or not the conditions under which that resource can
be accessed, which will be very much influenced by the department, by the clean
environment process and eventually will lead to a licence‑‑may well
put conditions to that harvest which may or may not be acceptable to the
company. So that question is still to be
resolved.
The minister has on different occasions referred to such
issues as what kind of activity will be permitted under the licensing of the
environmental licences that spells out these conditions, the actual physical
access to the area, whether it means roads, or the kind of treatment of
sensitive areas within the cutting area, rivers, creeks, the question of
determination of not accessing certain park areas. In this instance, it could well be officials
from within the Parks Branch who will be discussing or making presentations to
the environment commission in that regard.
So it is the how and the environmentally acceptable manner
and the way in which the resource will be accessed that are at question. I just wanted to put that on the record. It is not a question, at least in my
understanding, that the Clean Environment Commission process will laterally
deal with the access to the resource, but is principally to determine whether
or not the resource is there. That is
the professional purview of the foresters within the Department of Natural
Resources and even, more importantly, by our own legislation under The Forest
Act.
It is The Forest Act that provides the permits, the
forestry minister who provides the access and determines what constitutes an
allowable cut, what does not constitute an allowable cut. The department of forestry has an ongoing
major expense, their ongoing inventory of Manitoba forestry which takes into
account the problems of disease or problems of burns and so forth.
My colleague the member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard
Evans), as a former Natural Resources minister, is aware of this. But it is specifically the legislative
responsibility of the director of forestry to make these allocations. How they will be accessed becomes very much
the purview of the Department of Environment and specifically the Clean
Environment Commission which will attach the conditions of licensing that
operation.
If the conditions are such that are not deemed possible or
acceptable to the company then I suppose the issue is up in the air. But I think it is worthwhile to put that on
the record so that committee members, particularly those who also have the
responsibilities of examining the Estimates of the Minister of Natural Resources‑‑that
some of the questions that I heard here this afternoon directed at the Minister
of Environment (Mr. Cummings) are legislatively, quite frankly, more
specifically the responsibility of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr.
Driedger).
Ms. McCormick: I appreciate that clarification. You know I am kind of new to this, and this
is the first time I have gone through the Estimates process. Just in my own defence, rather than allowing
it to appear on the record that I did not know what I was doing this afternoon,
I did want to determine from the Minister of Environment those factors which
went into the decision making to have a sequential licensing process. I do agree that those questions that I asked
are appropriately brought up in the Natural Resources Estimates. In fact, we may expedite that process,
because now I am on the record with that set of questions. When I ask them again, they will be prepared
to give me the answers. So I thank you
for the lesson.
Ms. Cerilli: I want to pick up on some of the issues still
related to forestry, stemming from what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns)
is saying, knowing that he was the minister responsible for Natural Resources
for quite some time. I think one of the
things that is happening, though, is we are finding that we have to challenge
the process because it often does not ensure that we are going to have
sustainability, and the environmental impact assessment has to be, I think,
broad enough to ensure that there is not going to be a situation where we do
not have a process that is going to consider the reality of the situation. Let us put it that way.
I have had a number of concerns expressed to me regarding
the transfer of the mill in Pine Falls, and considering that there are only 13
minutes left, can the minister clarify what specifically must be done to meet
the milestone of the federal transitional authority under The Fisheries Act by
June 21, which is‑‑what?‑‑not even two weeks away?
Mr. Cummings: The member's date is probably more accurate
than I referenced earlier. What they
have to demonstrate is that they, in fact, ordered certain equipment. I had referenced that being within a month,
but I accept the date you state. It just
means that it has to be sooner than later.
Ms. Cerilli: That is all that they have to do is order the
secondary effluent treatment equipment?
Mr. Cummings: The specifics of the equipment, I guess I
will not get into, but I do not think there is a problem with that
process. We are talking about a two‑year
order, and early on in the order they must demonstrate that they have, in fact,
ordered particular equipment.
An order does not constitute just tabling your phone
call. I suppose it does constitute
placing an order for construction of material.
That involves a financial commitment which, I take it, would be binding
on the proponents.
So I disagree a little bit with the statement, is that all
they have to do? I think it means a
demonstrated financial commitment, unless the department can tell me differently
here in a minute. I am getting a nod in
the affirmative that that is in fact what would occur.
In fact, I am informed that the term is proof of purchase,
which goes beyond just an order. It
means they have to put down the money.
* (1650)
Ms. Cerilli: So are we going to be guaranteed that this
equipment is going to be purchased by Abitibi‑Price?
Mr. Cummings: No. It
will be purchased by the new employee‑owned company.
Ms. Cerilli: But, currently, the transitional
authorization is allowing Abitibi‑Price to continue operating there. That is currently who is still managing and
operating that mill. Is that right?
Mr. Cummings: I guess the extension is‑‑I would
have to look at the precise legal responsibilities here, but I am confident
that it is the new company that is buying the equipment. The member is asking me, who has the
operating extension? Is it Abitibi or is
it the new company? I would suggest
during this transitional phase that that is not necessarily a big deal one way
or the other. I think the two are
somewhat interchangeable. If the member
is thinking about ongoing liability, which is where I usually am told the
rubber hits the road, and who accepts the liability from what day forward or
from a certain date backward, there is always some question that, goodness
knows, if it will ever be settled about the historic liability of the area.
Abitibi, obviously, is responsible. Whether or not there will be a severance
between them and the new entity, I suppose, is a question that is asked, but
the new company is definitely ordering the equipment, as I understand it,
because the upgrade is part of the takeover.
The member, I think, is implying, is there something falling between the
cracks here or somebody losing an ability to leverage and enforcement? I may not be able to give you the precise‑‑the
agreement that the obligation has undertaken to the federal government under,
but, ultimately, it is going to be the new operation that is going to have to
live up to these standards.
Ms. Cerilli: What I am getting at is that the minister is
saying what I was afraid I was getting at; it is that Abitibi‑Price is
not going to have any financial responsibility, even though they are still
operating that mill right now. As I hear
it, they are making still a million dollars a month profit from that operation,
and they are not investing any money into the effluent treatment, the effluent
treatment to protect the water quality of the river. Is that the case?
Mr. Cummings: The member has referenced a number. I am not going to make any comment on a
number that is grabbed out of the air where our goal here is to get the plant
cleaned up. I think the new company is
quite capable of striking reasonable negotiations with the old parent company
and getting on with the reconstruction of the plant. Frankly, the plant is going to be shut
down. It is kaput, and if the new
company does not take over and clean it up, it will be shut down.
Perhaps, I am not bringing enough clarity to your
question. Part of that is because we are
not the enforcing party in terms of the federal guideline and extension that is
involved. I am sure I can find out more
detail about the precise responsibility, but I do not think that I or any of
the staff here can just answer that on the record in a way that would be
precise enough to be kept in perpetuity.
So you will have to let us get that information before I respond
specifically to your question, but the point is that the job is being done at
the conditions of the interim licence which are appropriate.
But I would question what you are implying. If the company is getting out of the
business, who is accepting responsibility for the environmental upgrade? It sure is not going to be Abitibi for too
long because they are getting out. They
are gone. If the company is making
money, the only reason would be because they have not got any depreciation left
to allocate against that mill. They are
keeping it together with barbed wire and chewing gum.
Ms. Cerilli: This is what makes me kind of upset about
this issue, is that I may be‑‑I am out on my figure. I know that I have heard reports that there
is that much profit in one month since the initiation of the agreement to buy
it out. I do not have a problem,
certainly, with a company making a profit like that as long as they are going
to turn some of that around and protect the local communities and the
environment where they are working.
What makes it even more disconcerting is that now we have
an approximately $30 million loan guarantee‑‑correct me if I am
wrong‑‑and, as I understand it, that money is going to go to the
new managers of the mill and they are going to use that money to purchase the
effluent treatment equipment. So, at the
end of the day, it is the people of Manitoba who are putting the money up to
protect this river, and the company that has been operating there for decades
is getting off without having to invest any money into the upgrading, even
though the transitional authorization has indicated that is what was supposed
to happen, as I understood it. So there
seems to be a gap here, as the minister said.
Mr. Cummings: I think there is something missing in the
discussion here. First of all, Abitibi
has said they are going to close the plant.
Taking it from there, the purchasers will be purchasing nothing but dust
if they purchase a closed plant, because one of the things that makes the sale
acceptable is that they are able to get their book of business. So they have to buy an ongoing operation. For example, one of the places that they sell
is into the Rocky Mountain‑Denver area.
That is where one of their large customers is, besides the Winnipeg Free
Press, et cetera.
The member is trying to make the scenario that says that
the company is making money hand over fist while others are preparing to
rebuild the plant. There is no doubt
some benefit accruing to both sides in that aspect. The one benefit is as I described. The other one is that the company no doubt
has not got any money to depreciate against that plant right now.
If there is some fluke of the market that I have not
noticed that pulp companies and paper companies are making any enormous amounts
of profit at this juncture‑‑but I think the member is making quite
a leap of faith if she is assuming that, because the new operators are
undertaking to do the upgrade for the protection of the river, it has all of a
sudden created windfall profits for the company that is getting out. Remember that the company that is getting out
is really not getting very much for its assets, if anything at all, and with
that the new company is picking up the cutting rights, the reforestation, the
workforce, as the workers themselves that are refinancing.
When we are talking about the province being put at risk‑‑the
taxpayer of the province‑‑I suppose that is a comment that has to
be moderated by the fact that there is upwards of, I think, 1,200 jobs that are
at stake here. They are finished out
there if they do not get on with this upgrade, and we, frankly, morally at
least, supported the federal government providing an extension so that we could
in fact get on with the cleanup. So I am
not sure that I can argue against the member's statement, nor do I think she
has been able to substantiate it. I
think more importantly is what is happening out there. She is speculating that the company is making
money, while the new company is getting ready to do the upgrade and the
repair. I do not inherently think that
that is a bad chain of events.
Ms. Cerilli: We have a company that is operating a mill
that has no overhead. The employees have
been working there without a contract for almost a year. They are going to get $40,000‑‑or
sorry, $40 million, I think it is, of preferred shares and they want that, as I
understand it, before they give up complete authority on a plant, as the
minister said, that would be dust. So I
think this is not a pretty picture.
The Environment minister, Ruth Grier, in Ontario announced
on February 2, 1993, a comprehensive clean water regulation targeting a wide
range of substances from Ontario's 26 pulp and paper mills, including
organochlorines. This was written up in
the February '93 issue of Hazardous Materials Management magazine.
I am wondering why we did not do this in Manitoba, or why
are we not doing this in Manitoba to sort of partner the federal transitional
authorizations and federal Fisheries legislation? I know we only have two mills, as the
minister has referenced, in Manitoba, but still.
* (1700)
Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Order, please. The time being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, I am interrupting the proceedings of the committee. This committee will resume at 8 p.m.
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION
Madam Chairperson
(Louise Dacquay): Order, please. Will the Committee of Supply please come to
order.
This section of the Committee of Supply is dealing with the
Estimates for the Department of Highways.
We are on item 1.(g), page 91 of the Estimates manual. Would the minister's staff please enter the
Chamber.
Mr. Daryl Reid
(Transcona): Madam Chairperson, when we left off at the
last part of the Estimates process for Highways and Transportation, we were
dealing with Occupational Health and Safety.
I will go to that part after a moment.
I have a question relating to an earlier question that I
had asked. I had the opportunity to go
back and check Hansard, and I want to bring this to the minister's attention
because there appears to be a discrepancy in the figures that he provided for
me at the last Estimates sitting, and that is dealing with the number of women,
the number of First Nations people, the number of disabled people and the
number of visible minorities that are employed within the Department of
Highways and Transportation.
I have looked back in the Hansard for the last sitting of
this department, and the figures the minister gave me indicate that there has
been an increase of various percentages for each of these categories. When I reviewed the statistics on the year
over year, there seems to have been a drop in the statistics.
I am going to read out the numbers that were provided in
the previous Highways and Transportation Estimates last year. The numbers that were given by the then‑Minister
of Highways and Transportation indicated that there were 447 women in the
department, that there were 108 First Nations people, that there were 27
disabled and 27 visible minorities. All
of these figures do not jibe with the figures the minister has given to me for
this year's; in fact, if you compare the year over year, there has been a
decrease in this year's numbers. I want
to know how the numbers the minister gives me can indicate there has been an
increase; when you compare year over year, that is not the case.
Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister
of Highways and Transportation): Madam
Chairperson, I think what the member has probably identified is that over the
course of from last year to this year the total number of employees is down a
little bit. That is why he will see
actual numbers of, say, female employees being less this year than last year,
but the amount of total employees is down fairly significantly, so that the
actual percent of women in the total work force is a little higher this year
than it was last year. So it is the total
figure relative to the numbers in the category.
Mr. Reid: It is obvious, then, that when the minister
gave the percentage, it was based on the total, but the point I am trying to
make here is that there has been a reduction in each of these categories, which
is what I would have thought would have been contrary to the affirmative action
program. We had 434 women that were in
the department for this year and in the previous year we had 447, so we have
obviously lost‑‑the number of women has decreased by 13.
We have seen a reduction in the number of disabled people
by three and the number of visible minorities by five, so our affirmative
action program is obviously not functioning up to what one would think would be
the intended purpose of it.
I am not going to make a long and belaboured point of this,
but I just want to draw it to the minister's attention. If we are going to have an affirmative action
program, it only seems reasonable to me that there would be some increases, not
only in the percentages, as we have a sliding or decreasing overall employment
within the department, but in the actual numbers themselves.
We cannot have an affirmative action program, if we are
going to see a decrease in the number of employees that are employed in each of
those categories, so I just draw that to the minister's attention. I will not belabour that point.
To go back to the Occupational Health and Safety, when we
were talking in the last Estimates, the minister said he was going to supply me
with some statistics, I believe, a sheet of year‑over‑year
comparisons. Has the minister had a
chance to put together any of that information?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, Madam Chair, there is a page here
somewhere. I will distribute a
compilation of information to both parties as requested the last time we were
sitting.
* (1430)
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the
information. The Occupational Health and
Safety subdepartment, I believe, also does environmental monitoring. It is obvious that we have, with our yards
that we have throughout the province, fuel and other products, maybe hazardous
products, stored onsite. Do we do our
regular audits for those products, and if we had to make any alterations to our
equipment or the way our operations are taking place to deal with the
environmental aspects?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the member is asking about
whether we do an audit on particularly fuels stored in various yard sites. The answer is that on a monthly basis each
site is audited with regard to knowing the volumes used and the volumes left,
volumes received. So there is a
continuous management approach to be sure that we know if there is anything
that is unaccounted for.
Mr. Reid: What have those audits determined?
Mr. Findlay: The member asks if we have any sites where
there are known spills. Basically, the
answer is no. There are not any spills
of magnitude. One has to understand that
day to day there has to be little things happen once in a while. There is a Midland site, an asphalt site here
in Winnipeg that some analysis is now being done on, which is an ongoing
process.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister expand on that, a bit about
that Midland site, what the concerns are for the department that are currently
under investigation, if I understand him correctly?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the Midland site is a location
where asphalt has been stored over a some 40‑year period, and then
naturally in the process of that period of time with a little less than today's
environmental considerations there has been expectation that there have been
some spills of this, that or the next thing.
The site is no longer used for asphalt.
Mr. Reid: I might be wrong on this, and the minister
can correct me if I am. Is it not
possible to recycle some of the asphalt product that may have been picked up as
part of the construction or maintenance process so that it can be recycled?
Well, if we have been storing asphalt and rejected asphalt
product or other products on that site, is it not possible to recycle some of
the asphalt itself into further maintenance or construction programs utilizing
asphalt so that we can reduce the amount that is currently stored on that site,
or is there some way to dispose of it?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, staff tell me it is waste. It is bits and pieces of asphalt mixed with
soil. There is little or no recyclable
capability or use.
Mr. Reid: I must say that in the last Estimates there
were more extensive answers given by his predecessor. I did not have to pull the information out so
much as we are seeming to have to do here.
Now, there may be some reasons why he does not want to give any further
information relating to this particular site, and maybe it is more appropriate
to deal with this in another fashion later, maybe off the record if there is
something that he does not to talk about at this time, but that is the
impression I am being left with here.
Mr. Findlay: Well, I do not know what the member is trying
to get at, but he cannot expect me to be running around sniffing at every sight
and know precisely what is going on in every square yard. I mean, what the staff are telling me is that
an environmental analysis of the particular site is being done. It is ongoing. We do not have the results. I am not going to speculate that there is a
problem when we do not know that there is one.
I can assure the member that staff have assured me that any reuseable
asphalt is reused, and in the process of the analysis, we will find out if
there is a problem and what the magnitude of that problem is.
Mr. Reid: I will not prolong that point.
Does the department have an Employee Assistance Program in
place? We have some 2,200, 2,300
employees in the department. Is there a
program in place to assist employees with problems that might be detected or
problems that they might come forward with by way of either alcohol or drug
abuse or personal problems? I know in
other large companies or organizations, they have such programs. Does this department have any program like
that?
* (1440)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the Civil Service
Commission has these kinds of programs available. Any employees in the department who come
forward with those kinds of problems are referred to Civil Service Commission
programs for appropriate action.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that.
Last year, the previous Minister of Highways talked about
audiogram testing that was taking place for employees within the department,
most likely operating heavy equipment, and that there was some audiometric
testing of approximately 500 employees and they were going to look at reviews
or amendments of the department's health and safety procedures. What has become of that? Have we taken any further steps to assist the
employees and to prevent any hearing loss as a result of their occupations, relating
to their activities in the department?
Mr. Findlay: The member is right in the fact that there is
an ongoing testing program for employees to measure hearing and hearing
loss. I am sure the member is aware that
today's modern workplace employees are requested and suggested strongly that
they wear appropriate hearing protection on certain kinds of jobs. We are not aware that there has been anything
significant in the process of additional hearing loss of employees in the
workplace. The Occupational Health and
Safety committee has not come forward with any recommendations for changing the
workplace relative to the measurements that have been made. I would suggest that anybody who felt that
they had hearing loss would obviously seek comments from a doctor as to what to
do. We all know that hearing loss is
progressive over the course of ageing, too.
It is an ongoing testing program. At this point nothing unusual has come out of
it. Certainly it accentuates to
employees, it suggests work‑safety wearing of appropriate hearing
protection is a good idea.
Mr. Reid: The minister mentioned a minute ago about
health and safety committees, I think, if I understood him correctly. I take it, then, that we have health and
safety committees within the department, in various areas of the department. Is it a cochaired type of committee, and do
those committees report to the minister's office or to the department heads, or
how does it function? Are there any
outstanding issues that have been long‑standing in nature that have not
been resolved to this point?
Mr. Findlay: There are many, many committees. There is really one in every major
workplace. There is one in every
maintenance yard, and there are some 80 maintenance yards across the province,
every garage, airports, materials testing labs, so there are many, many
committees and they all report back through the ADM of Administrative Services.
Mr. Reid: So I take it then that there have been no
long‑standing, unresolved issues as a part of the Workplace Health and
Safety Committee then.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the committee has been very
successful in resolving any disputes or difficulties that arise; in other
words, a nip‑them‑in‑the‑bud sort of thing.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. It is a good sign that the administration is
attempting to work with the employees of the department to resolve the issues,
because I know by my past experience that was not always the case, so it is
good to see that the department is able to solve those problems when they come
forward.
I will pass this part.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(g) Occupational Health and Safety (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $122,500‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $45,400.
Mr. Reid: I have one question there. Can the minister explain the capital
expenditures of‑‑I think, it is $3,000?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, that amount of capital is
budgeted for purchasing testing equipment and maybe audiovisual equipment for
use in the various regions. You might
say it is a bit of a catchall for small items that are needed for part of the
Occupational Health and Safety aspect.
Madam Chairperson: Item 1.(g)(2) Other Expenditures $45,400‑‑pass.
Item 2. Operations and Maintenance (a) Maintenance Program.
* (1450)
Mr. Reid: I have quite a number of questions under the
Maintenance Program section. Have there
been any changes take place within the Maintenance portion of the department
dealing with the way we prepare for our seasonal maintenance requirements,
whether they be summer or winter? I
guess in particular here, I should be asking questions relating to the winter
program. Have we reduced the number of
employees within the department that do the maintenance portion, and is there
some program in place to move away from department maintenance people and move
towards a private contractor to do some of the work for the maintenance
department?
Mr. Findlay: The member asks about employees, and
certainly he is well aware that there were some temporary layoffs last winter
from November 1 to April 18. The vast
majority of those employees were called back to work this spring. I think the member must also realize that our
mission is to get the maximum amount of work done at the lowest cost to the
taxpayer. I guess it probably was a very
good move to have done that last winter because it was a winter of relatively
low winter maintenance. There was not a
lot of snow, and there were not very many storms.
So the maintenance standard is what the department tries to
maintain and tries to get it done at the lowest possible cost. At certain times and places, private
contractors will be called in if it is deemed appropriate and the right way to
go, but the department still has a very significant workforce that does the
vast majority of the winter maintenance work.
That is what the member is talking about at this time. But clearly last year there was a saving in
winter maintenance. It is simply because
of the nature of the winter.
Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister can give me a better
understanding then. How is it on
average? We are going to talk in long‑term
averages here because I have been told in past Estimates that the department
does planning on average winter or average summer requirements. There are going to be peaks and valleys to
that process, of course. What kind of
money are we looking at saving here, and how is it better for the employees
that were doing these jobs normally as part of the departmental staff to now
move to a seasonal basis for the staff and, as the minister has just said a
minute ago, to go to private contractor replacement for the staff that had been
previously doing those jobs? How many
staff were involved in that process, numbers specific, and what type of
contractual arrangements do we have with private contractors to undertake to
fill in place of the departmental staff that had normally done that work?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, there were a little over a
hundred people involved in the temporary layoff over the course of the
winter. This did not result in any less
department equipment being out there doing the job. These were staff that the department deemed
were not necessary to do the average winter maintenance that would be required
across the highways of Manitoba. It has
been an ongoing situation with municipalities and with private contractors that
at certain times and places where it is deemed appropriate they will be called
in and paid on an hourly basis for particular jobs. The department did do a trial last year where
they tendered for the plowing of certain highways, tendered out to private
contractors to do it as an experiment.
Mr. Reid: What were the names of the contractor firms
and how much money have we expended for those firms, and which highways were
they supposed to clear?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we do not have that information
at this time. We will come back to the
member with the firms that were successful tenderers, the highways that were
done in this way, the dollars involved and also the comparative cost of had it
been done by the department.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I had received a letter from someone I take
that was affected by the department's actions and indicated that there were
going to be several private contractors hired, and that there was going to be a
fixed fee for the contractors to be on standby.
Is that the case?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, staff will bring the terms of
the contract along with that information I said previously we would bring.
* (1500)
Mr. Reid: I appreciate that. I look forward to receiving that information
from the minister because I think if we have long‑term employees in the
department, it would seem somewhat unreasonable from this point, without having
that information in front of me, that we would be laying off these employees
just for pure convenience for the department.
I know the minister already knows that we have a philosophical
difference about privatization of certain aspects of either the department or
transportation in general, so that is why I am interested in what is taking
place here, because to me it appears to be a move towards privatization of the
services that had normally been provided within the department. That is why I am interested in seeing this.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I guess we can call it a
philosophical difference, but it is a rather significant philosophical
difference. Our job is to get the
highways maintained at the least possible cost to the taxpayer. That is the mission we are on, and the member
says we should hire employees just because we should hire employees.
We will come back with the information he has talked about,
and as I say, the pilot was done. Our
mission is to find the lowest cost way to effectively use Manitobans to get our
highways cleaned off in the wintertime.
That is our mission. It is not to
hire people just for the sake of hiring them.
It is hiring them to do the job in the most cost‑efficient way,
whether it is employees or whether it is contracted out or whether it is a
combination of the two. I think what you
see is the department is using a combination of the two. What is right will be what is the least cost
to the taxpayer, because in either instance we are using Manitobans to do that
job.
Mr. Reid: Well, if this was such a great and wonderful
thing, then I am sure it must have been a consideration by the department in
past years, and I would not think for a moment that this would have been a new
consideration by the department. There
must have been some comparisons year over year, private versus departmental
staff doing the work, and I would not think that this is something new. For us to move at this time seems to me a
little bit unusual, knowing the minister's interests in moving towards certain
types of activity from the private sector versus the public sector doing that
type of work.
I am not talking here about increasing the staff. We had staff in place to do that type of
work, and now for us to be moving away from that staff, laying them off on a
seasonal basis and then calling them back and hoping that they will be there as
trained people, what you are effectively hoping to undertake is to have a
captive workforce that goes on unemployment insurance during the winter months‑‑if
that is the case‑‑and then have the taxpayers of the country pick
up the costs. So where are we further
ahead?
This is a program that even the Liberal Party is
undertaking to review in Ottawa right now, some of the industries here in our
city that are doing that type of activity, laying people off in their low‑production
months and then bringing them back and hopefully they will be there, available
for them to come back in their high‑peak demand periods. That seems to be where the department is
going. I am wondering how it is more
efficient for us as a province to undertake that type of activity. That is why I am asking for the information.
I also want to ask the minister, because we had some
discussions last year about the RTAC routes and they have changed now to the
TAC council I believe that looks at routes, do we have any kind of a TAC
routing map for the province?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, we do.
We have a TAC routing map.
Mr. Reid: Would it be possible to get a copy of that at
some point so I would have a better understanding of where these routes are?
Are there any changes that are anticipated to those routes
to allow for greater weights and dimensions of vehicles travelling? Are we looking at an expansion of the routes?
Mr. Findlay: Yes, as I indicated earlier, Madam
Chairperson, we will supply the route map to the member. Certainly, that map gets added to whenever a
road, a PR or a PTH, is upgraded or a bridge on that particular route is
upgraded that was below standard for RTAC routes. Also routes are added in the wintertime
during the frozen state. RTAC
designation can be in place for a number of weeks or a few months in the
wintertime. The routes in the province
continue to get added to, and they are added if they are upgraded, the bridge
or the road is upgraded and there is a commercial need to rate it up to an RTAC
rating.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I look forward to receiving it because I did
not have a full understanding of the routes that we have in the province. There are some cases where I have truckers
call me on certain issues relating to routes, so I like to be able to tell them
what routes they would be interested in, whether they are part of that system
or not.
Also last year when we cut back on the dust abatement
program and we moved towards a fee for service for those who were interested in
receiving the spray on the gravel roads to keep the level of dust down, there
was obviously a fair number of people who were affected by that. There were concerns that were brought to our
attention on health and safety issues, too, relating to that spray, whether it
be people who have asthma or other ailments for which dust had affected
them. What kind of enquiries has the
department received? What number of
people have contacted the department and contracted for that spraying
throughout the province?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we do not have an accurate
number as to how many paid the $150 to the department for the job. We feel it is probably about 10 percent of
the locations that had previously been done.
Mr. Reid: If the minister could, if the department has
the information somewhere back in records, I would appreciate receiving
that. Also I would like to know what
type of revenue was generated by the interest of the public to have their
property sprayed, and were there any cases that came forward to the minister
asking for compassionate consideration based on the needs of the family? Also, did we realize the $500,000 savings out
of the elimination of this program as part of the maintenance budget? It was my understanding there was going to be
a $200 cost for this program; why is the minister now talking about $150? Did we reduce the cost of that?
Mr. Findlay: The $200 per site figure that the member had
last year was an estimated cost. When
the department figured out the exact cost of doing it, they ended up with $150,
which is the figure that I mentioned earlier.
So somebody contracted the department to do it; the cost was $150. In regard to the saving that was budgeted
last year, yes, the saving was achieved, if not more than that, because the
department did not get involved in the cost of doing it, so the saving was
fairly automatic.
With regard on compassionate grounds, I guess there were some
requests in that regard, and the department did not do any on that basis.
Mr. Reid: Does the minister have information pertaining
to the revenue that was generated by the fee for service, since this dust
maintenance program went to that basis?
What type of revenue was generated?
If he does not have the information available here today, because he
indicated earlier that he does not know the exact number of people that applied
for it, but if he has the information on revenue generated, he can bring that
back at the same time.
Mr. Findlay: I do not have that figure here now, but I
think the member must realize that revenue received by government goes directly
to Finance. It does not pass go; we do
not collect our $200. [interjection]
Mr. Findlay: We bill.
They collect.
Mr. Reid: So the minister is telling me then he has no
idea how much revenue is being generated.
He must know the number of applications that come forward to the
department for that type of work. I
would think that he would have the information available.
Mr. Findlay: Yes, we have the information. I am just saying that we do not have it now,
but I do not want the member to think that the Department of Highways has that
revenue.
Mr. Reid: I would not suggest that his department
collects it. I know there has been some
debate on whether or not the revenue should come back to the departments that
generate the revenue, and I am sure that debate will continue long into the
future for whichever government is there.
Can the minister indicate to me, because there have been
changes in this portion of the program with dust abatement, have there been any
changes anticipated for other programs, whether it be sanding or salting or any
other anticipated program changes for the maintenance portion of the
department?
Mr. Findlay: I guess, fundamentally, the answer to the
member's question is no; there is no major reduction in activities. I also want to remind the member that in the
process of operating a department we are always looking for ways to be more
efficient, more cost effective at getting a job done. One example might be, which does draw a
little attention once in a while, is that when they are cleaning the main
street in a town, it is the PR or the PTH through the town. We used to clear the snow off the street and
immediately remove it from the curb, and one has to realize that is a costly
process. With not very much snow in the
wintertime, that snow can be allowed to accumulate for one, two, three, maybe
four storms depending on how much there is.
So you save some cost by not removing it every storm. You do it when there is an appropriate amount
of snow to warrant not only grading it away to the curb but removing it from
the curb. So those kinds of cost savings
will continue. The amount of sand and
salt you use, how often you use it will be determined by the cost efficiency
and, naturally, to achieve safety particularly at our intersections.
* (1510)
Mr. Reid: I was aware of that part. The previous minister indicated in the
Estimates last year that was going to be the case. I do not think, from my understanding, that
the municipalities, the R.M.s or the LGDs would be particularly happy with
that, but I suppose that was a decision that the department made.
There were some changes in past years, too, with dealing
with the roadside maintenance in the summer months where the department cut
back on the amount of grass mowing and cutting.
In fact, it is my understanding now they have even gone away from
cutting the ditches, and they are just doing some roads at road edge. Is that still the case? Is that still the policy for this year? If not, maybe the minister can indicate what
changes are going on there.
Mr. Findlay: With regard to the mowing, there is no change
from last year. They will be mowing just
the shoulder of the road, and how much of the shoulder depends on how major a
highway it is, and mowing where there are problems with brush or with weeds.
Mr. Reid: I am just wondering how that fits in under
the annual report's comments then. You
look under the Maintenance Program, and it says with respect to the Maintenance
Program: "investment in highway
facilities" and to "accommodate highway users with a safe and uniform
level of service, and conserve esthetic values." How does that type of a program jibe with the
words of your own annual report?
Mr. Findlay: "Esthetic value," I guess‑‑I
mean, this is the Highways department.
We are associated with the highway surface for safety, and
"esthetic," to me, means a nice safe highway as opposed to ditches that
look pretty, which does not protect anybody from anything.
Mr. Reid: I am glad the minister raised that point,
because this will take me to a more parochial question dealing with a roadway
that runs between our two constituencies, Provincial Trunk Highway 15. The department undertook to do some
maintenance work on that last summer, I believe. At least I believe that was part of his
department's repair program, between Plessis Road and what is supposed to be
the new right‑of‑way for the Perimeter Highway. Maybe the minister can answer that, if that
is part of his department's responsibility, first.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, that is City of Winnipeg
property. Our boundary is the south
boundary of that road. The city has the
road, and then we have the land south of there.
But the south boundary of the road back to Murdock‑‑I think,
Murdock‑‑that is Springfield south of the road. That is the Department of Highways. But the road itself that you are talking
about is city property.
Mr. Reid: Okay, I may be confused on that, then, because
it was my understanding when it was designated as a provincial road or a PTH
that it was under the responsibility of the department. There was, I know, some extensive work that
was done there, but the problem is that the roadway is starting to slide now as
a result of some of the rains and the water flow down in the ditch. So, if it was the department's
responsibility, I would have thought we would have wasted our money without
taking some further appropriate actions to prevent the erosion of their base.
So I will take the minister's word that that is not part of
his department, then, unless he knows if there is some cost‑sharing
arrangement between the department and the city on that road.
Mr. Findlay: Just to reconfirm what I said, that is city
property all the way. Although it is
called Highway 15, it is also called 115.
I guess there is not a clear demarcation where 115 stops‑‑that
is the city‑‑and where 15, which is the province, starts, but it is
just past the Transcona Cemetery right at the Perimeter. That is where we start on Highway 15.
Mr. Reid: All right, I will bring that to my
councillor's attention, make sure he is aware of it then.
I have some questions relating to the changes that were
undertaken by the department just recently with respect to the Dauphin Sign
Shop. The department has taken and has
moved away from meeting their own departmental needs for any signage required
within the province and either at that or under a contract basis to LGDs and
municipalities too, has the department operations been now wound down
completely, or are there still staff or functions taking place?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the Dauphin Sign Shop was
sold to Signal Industries as of April 1.
It was sold on a tender basis.
Proposal calls were called for.
Three different firms came forward and Signal Industries was the best
offer. The staff who were in the Sign
Shop are now staff of Signal Industries.
Mr. Reid: Does the minister know if all the staff were
retained for that department? Was that
one of the conditions of the contractual arrangements that were made, and is it
possible to see any of those contractual arrangements between the department
and Signal Industries?
Mr. Findlay: All four employees at April 1st started to
work with Signal Industries. To our
knowledge, they are all still there. We
do not know of any change in that regard.
With regard to the actual contract that was signed, it is
over 300 pages. The lawyers on both
sides add to the paperwork.
Mr. Reid: Did you read all of it?
* (1520)
Mr. Findlay: I will not answer, but I can tell the member
if he wants a copy of it, remember you have 312 pages, or we can give you a
synopsis of it, whatever you would like.
We do not have any problem with it, but it is just‑‑to ask
for a copy of the entire thing unless you are really going to use it, it is
fairly expensive to do. So if you would
like a synopsis or something, we can give you that.
Mr. Reid: I would appreciate to see a synopsis at this
point. Although we will hold in reserve
the option, if possible, to see the full contract depending upon what
information is contained within the synopsis or the summary itself.
Maybe the minister can just answer some general questions
now, because the highest bid, looking at the O/C for this sale, was $338,000 to
Signal. It was my understanding that
what some of the provisions of the contract were that we were to purchase from
Signal Industries various types of signs, a minimum dollar value, I would take
at $500,000 per year over a five‑year period. Are there any other conditions that are
attached to that contractual sale to Signal that either we as a province or a
department have to adhere to, or the industry has to adhere to?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, we are committed to buying
$500,000 worth of signs each year for five years, and Signal Industries is
committed to supplying at least that amount of signs and to stay in Dauphin for
five years. I can assure the member we
buy more than $500,000 worth of signs in any given year, so we have got some
flexibility for that amount over the $500,000.
On an annual basis, the department feels that there will be
about a 30 percent saving in the cost of signs under this contractual
arrangement versus what was in place before, as well as we have sold the
business for $338,000, and we no longer have to pay the property grant in lieu
of taxes of some $19,000 a year. So the government
comes out considerably ahead and has a contract for its signs to be produced.
Mr. Reid: Does Signal Industries then have to supply
those signs out of their operations here in Manitoba, or will they be taking to
supply their signs from their Saskatchewan facilities as well? What I am concerned of here is that while we
have an arrangement for $500,000 per year, is there also something that says
all those signs have to be produced within the province of Manitoba for
Manitoba's needs?
Mr. Findlay: Well, as I mentioned earlier, we have
contracted to buy $500,000 worth of signs; they have committed to producing
$500,000 worth of signs in Dauphin. They
do not have to be the exact same $500,000.
Some of our signs to meet our commitment might come from Regina, but
they still have to produce $500,000 worth of signs. It could be sold to somebody else. It is the same $500,000. We buy from the Dauphin Sign Shop and they
produce. Obviously, for their own operational efficiencies, some signs might
come from somewhere else, but they still have to produce $500,000 worth of
signs in that shop.
Mr. Reid: So that is $500,000 worth of signs to supply
the Province of Manitoba, not for anybody else, just for the province itself.
The minister has indicated that we spend considerably more
than $500,000 a year on signs. Can you
give me an indication of what dollar value we would spend?
Mr. Findlay: On an average year about $750,000 worth of
signs is a normal purchase.
Mr. Reid: Why would we not, when we sign the contract
with the company, sign for $750,000 worth of signs?
Mr. Findlay: Well, seeking a commitment before giving a
commitment on the volume of dollars that we would buy from them, we wanted the
commitment from them that they would stay there for five years, and to get that
commitment from them for five years we only had to commit to buy $500,000. Now, as I said, we need some
flexibility. In any given year, although
we might be buying $750,000 for the last two or three years, it does not mean
that we will every year.
We need some flexibility so that if, in a particular year
or two, our request or need for signs is down, we are not forced to buy signs
we do not need. That is why it is better
that the ceiling is below what we normally buy, and then I am sure it is fair
to say that any purchases over and above the $500,000 is open contract. Clearly Dauphin would have a very good chance
of succeeding on any tender over and above our basic requirement of $500,000.
Mr. Reid: The minister obviously anticipated my next
question because that was my concern there, if it was going to be going to the
open‑tender process. I would hope
the new Signal Industries operation in Dauphin would then be able to be
successful bidders for that because it does provide employment and taxation
revenue for us in the province, but I am not sure that would be the case. I guess time will tell whether or not they
are going to be the successful bidder on the contracts.
There was obviously some concern raised by Airmaster Signs,
and I know I have seen Airmaster Signs at various parks. They do a fair amount of work for private
interests that require certain signage.
Why was it that we would not give consideration to a Manitoba firm that
was looking to take over the Dauphin Sign Shop?
Was there that much difference in the highest bid versus the Airmaster
proposal? Maybe the minister can give me
an indication of that.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, I know the member might want to
reflect on his wording there. He says,
"would not give consideration to."
The department absolutely did.
They were one of the three tenders.
They were one of the three, and the member just said earlier, he
believed we should be having open tenders.
Well, that is exactly what we did here.
We called for proposals, and Airmaster was one of the three bids that
came forward. They came in third, and
they did not guarantee anything about keeping jobs in Dauphin.
They missed the mark considerably. They were third place out of three. When you do tender business, you have to take
the best bid. You have to. That is morally, legally the right way to go. Airmaster is making all kinds of comments,
that we did not consider them, that they did not get a chance. Absolutely.
They came through the front door with everybody else, were unsuccessful
in a bidding process. The door is open
for them in any further requests or any tenders we put out for signs. They can bid along with everybody else.
* (1530)
Mr. Reid: I must have misspoke myself then when I made
reference to the fact of tendering or not tendering, because if we are going to
go to‑‑first off, I did not agree with the selling of the Dauphin
sign operations, let me put that on the record.
That was a decision of this government, and they made that decision.
My concern here is for the employees that are involved and
the services that are going to be provided.
While this agreement only allows for five years with a fixed dollar
value of sales or services between the government and the company, what happens
after the five‑year period, the five‑year contract has
expired? Would it then be‑‑would
the Signal Industries then be in a position, because they have‑‑obviously
their headquarters are in Regina, Saskatchewan.
Why would it then not be in their best interests to amalgamate all of
their services and to produce all of the signage required for both Saskatchewan
and Manitoba out of the Regina operations versus having it done in the Dauphin
area? Then we would lose the employment
opportunities for our people here in Manitoba.
Mr. Findlay: Well, you know, the member earlier commented
on‑‑I think he was indirectly supporting Airmaster, who did not
think that they should have lost the tendering process. They did not want to keep the jobs in
Dauphin. We took somebody who committed
to keeping the jobs in Dauphin, who has made considerable investment by buying
the operation from us. It means
considerable investment in Dauphin and beyond the five years will be determined
by conditions at that time.
I cannot imagine, after that kind of investment, that
Signal Industries could walk away from Dauphin.
They are in Dauphin. There are
other places, other people, they can sell signs to in Manitoba, beyond just the
provincial government. All indications are,
if the operation is successful, as I am sure it will be, that Dauphin will be a
sign production location for a long time to come.
The member must also realize that they sell signs right
across western Canada, whereas the Dauphin Sign Shop working for the Province
of Manitoba produced signs only for in Manitoba.
The opportunity is clearly there for them to be producing
signs that are sold in a much broader marketplace, so the business activity
there should definitely increase.
Somebody does not pay $338,000 for an operation and buy the inventory
and walk away from it. You just cannot
do that in business. So they have made a
commitment.
Mr. Reid: Come on.
Mr. Findlay: The member says, come on. Do you think in business we just write off
losses? You cannot do it. Let me tell you, if somebody is in the game,
you have to pay your bills, and when you pay a bill, you have to then get the
revenue, and you have to stay in business to do that. [interjection] Well, the
member should just get into some debt if he wants to find out what is good and
bad about it, but I can assure the member there has been considerable
discussion and everything points very favourably to Dauphin being a substantial
place for sign production in the future.
I would anticipate there will be a lot more signs produced
there in the coming years than there has been in the past because you have a
sales force right across western Canada now that are going to be competing for
various contracts with provincial governments and municipalities and other
companies.
Mr. Reid: I am sure the minister has been around long
enough to understand that companies take certain actions to further their own
business needs, and if it includes amalgamating the operations that they have,
they will do that regardless. If they
can see that there is a dollar advantage somewhere down the road, they will
take the steps to amalgamate those services, and that is what I am worried
about here, that after this five‑year contract has expired they can opt
to amalgamate the services in Saskatchewan.
I do not know if this is a company that is part of a larger
player. Maybe a holding company
somewhere holds them, or are they a wholly owned company? I do not know about the background of Signal
Industries. They could be taken over by
someone else in the future, and that is another part that bothers me. There are so many things here that are out of
our control. We lose control of our
signage requirements, or the company can move those jobs away from
Manitoba. So there are things that can
happen, and I do not know what is in the contract itself, without having read
it, but those are the concerns I have relating to Signal Industries taking
over.
The minister talked about Airmaster Signs. Well, if Airmaster put in a proposal that was
not meeting the requirements of the department that is something that he, as
the head of the department, and Airmaster have to debate. That is not for me to say on that part,
although it would have been nice if there had been a Manitoba company that had
taken over and purchased and retained that business within the province of
Manitoba and kept those profits within Manitoba and recirculated them
here. That would have been a greater
advantage for us as well. So I mean,
there are many considerations that have to be part of any contractual
arrangements if the department decides to undertake that. That is why I raise the concerns about that.
Also, can the minister indicate, is there a condition as a
part of this contract to utilize 3M products as part of the agreement because
there was some concern that there was not going to be any flexibility or option
left as far as utilization of other products, as well.
Mr. Findlay: What do you mean by other products?
Mr. Reid: For your signage, 3M product for the signs
themselves, yes, I believe you use 3M products, materials.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the department has imposed the
same specifications on Signal Industries as we had imposed on the Sign Shop and
certainly would expect that 3M would be the location that they would source the
starting material that is deemed to be some of the best reflective material in
the business. Our specifications are
what determine the product that we will get.
Mr. Reid: Looking at a publication here put out by
Keystone Municipal News, and it was an interview done with, I guess, the owner
of Airmaster. It was indicated here
that, and says, and I quote: Airmaster
was not given an equal opportunity to negotiate with the Manitoba government
despite several appeals to various departments.
That is a direct quote from the owner from Airmaster. So I do not understand when the minister says
that Airmaster came in the front door with their tender the same as everybody
else. Now, here is Airmaster saying that
that is not accurate. How does the
minister balance those two statements?
(Mr. Ben Sveinson,
Acting Chairperson, in the Chair)
* (1540)
Mr. Findlay: Well, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I cannot say
why somebody would say that, but I can tell you, when we called for proposal
calls, all three people that were interested were asked to submit on an equal
basis. After the bids are opened, we do
not then go back and negotiate with someone just because they want to. You have to be fair and reasonable, and if
that member thought or that company thought we should come back and negotiate
with them now that we had the other two open, that is an irresponsible
request. I am sorry. That is not the way tenders are done, just not
the way they are done, and if he thought because he was located in Manitoba he
had the right now to negotiate after the other two were open, now that he found
out what they were bidding, that is just not on‑‑just not on. He can say anything he wants, but the truth
is, he had equal opportunity to come through the door to put an attractive bid
on the table, and he came in third out of three.
Mr. Reid: I asked the question earlier, and I did not
get a specific answer from the minister when I asked about the differences in
the bids. Is it possible to get a dollar
value difference in the bids or can the minister give me a percentage in the
differences between the high and low?
Mr. Findlay: The member is‑‑although I might
like to give him the figures‑‑asking us to maybe supply some
information that might have some degree of confidentiality with other
bidders. So we will give you some
general breakdown for the next time that will sort of give you a better
understanding of the degree of difference without getting ourselves into some
difficulty with somebody else's confidentiality.
Mr. Reid: Again, the Airmaster company owner has
indicated that one of the reasons that he was not able to compete effectively
for the Manitoba business was the economies of scale; that Saskatchewan had a
closed process in there where the company had all the business for
Saskatchewan, so it was economies of scale that they could just increase their
production and could produce it at a lower cost, therefore, disadvantaging the
Manitoba company.
I know the minister's government has been talking about
reducing interprovincial trade barriers relating‑‑maybe that is one
of the considerations for one of our Manitoba companies. I am not saying here, trying to be a
proponent of reduction of interprovincial trade barriers, but maybe that is an
area that could be looked at if a Manitoba company is not given equal
opportunities to compete on what has been termed by others as a level playing
field.
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I will just tell the
member what we know. As far as we know,
Saskatchewan does have an open tendering business. It is not closed. It used to be closed in the past, but it is
not now. In fact, a year or two, maybe
three years ago, an Alberta firm was the successful tenderer for the
Saskatchewan government business. So
that does indicate Saskatchewan has an open policy. Clearly, we do want to have an open
policy. So we do not restrict companies
from bidding to do business in Manitoba.
Now, the person from Airmaster, obviously, would like us to
have a closed border so he would have a captive audience. We do not operate that way. I have to think that he is misrepresenting
Saskatchewan when he says they do not allow outside firms to tender in
Saskatchewan. Clearly, they do because
Alberta won a bid there. Now, whether he
has some other problems that he is not talking about in dealing with
Saskatchewan, we have tried to find out.
We have not been able to get any information from him as to the nature
of his inability to bid in Saskatchewan.
Clearly, not all companies from outside of Saskatchewan are
prevented from bidding there. If he is,
he should come forward and be more specific on his problems, because we do want
to bring down interprovincial trade barriers, but when he says Saskatchewan is
closed, he is not right. Saskatchewan is
open and, on that basis, it is only reasonable then that we are open to
allowing people from outside the province to bid.
I think it is fair to say all governments talk in terms of
moving in that direction. Certainly,
some provinces are dragging their heels more than others in getting that done.
Mr. Reid: That was the Airmaster owner's words that I
was indicating there, and that is why I just brought it to the minister's
attention, so if there were some inequities, then maybe the department could
give it consideration, or his government could give it consideration. I am not acting as a proponent for that
business. They can undertake and if
there are any concerns they have, I hope they will come forward and talk with
the minister or his department or his government.
I want to move on to an issue that I had raised here in
Question Period a few weeks back dealing with the Red Coat Trail. I know the minister at the time chose not to
answer the questions. He left that to
his colleague the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr.
Gilleshammer), which surprised me at the time, because I thought that the
renaming or designating of certain provincial trunk highways or provincial
roads was the responsibility of the Department of Highways and the minister.
Has there been some change in the responsibility for the
renaming of provincial roads or provincial highways? Is that no longer a function of the Minister
of Highways and Transportation?
Mr. Findlay: Well, the member asked a historical
question. The Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship is the minister responsible to determine what is
heritage here and what is heritage there.
The member wants to have a conflict between two areas of the province
when really both areas want to promote tourism.
There is a historical significance to the Boundaries
Commission along the 49th parallel.
There is no highway that is exactly where that Boundary Trail was. We all know that. Highway 3 is closest. Okay.
That is fair. The Red Coat Trail
has been designated in Saskatchewan and Alberta as Highway 2, and the people in
Manitoba have been part of that group.
They have been promoting the Red Coat Trail for tourism reasons for a
long, long time. In fact, there is a
book out, I do not have it with me, that shows the trail of Highway 2 from
Winnipeg all the way through to the Rockies, I guess.
We have met with both groups. Clearly, the citizens along both trails have
a broader understanding that, yes, historical significance is one thing, but
the reality today for those merchants along those trails is to promote people
coming to their communities and tour through their communities for
tourism. We identified the Yellowhead
route, the Trans‑Canada, the Boundary Trail, the Red Coat Trail. The more trails we can designate the more
likely we are to attract Manitobans to travel these routes because there is
something now that has heightened their awareness.
I can really tell the member that if we are going to
attract American tourists, they are really attracted to some designated
route. There is a certain degree of
personal security associated with a designated route. That is why we see lots of them on the
Yellowhead, Trans‑Canada, and maybe we need to have them travel other
routes.
* (1550)
If the Ministry of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship will
accept Highway 2 as the Red Coat Trail, we will put the signs up. What we do is put the signs up. There have been meetings between the two
groups. The Minister of Culture,
Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) has convened meetings between the
two groups and come to a conclusion that they both have a justifiable case,
that one has one designation, one has the other, and we would look pretty good
if we put a big sign up on Highway 75 saying:
Do the circle route; you are out here on the Perimeter; do the circle
route on the Red Coat Trail and the Boundary Commission Trail. It would be good for tourism, good for people
to understand Manitoba. We put up the
signs because we have been asked to.
Mr. Reid: Who asked the minister to put up the signs?
Mr. Findlay: We received a letter of authorization, a
request from the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
Mr. Reid: It seems strange that the Department of
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship would undertake to make that recommendation,
or a request of the minister's department, when I have here in front of me a
letter dated January 16, 1991, that says:
After a thorough and lengthy discussion, however, we have agreed not to
identify a provincial road or provincial highway as a Red Coat Trail.
How does the department at one point in time, within the
same mandate as a government, say they are not going to do it and then come
along and just a short period of time later undertake to give authorization to
the minister to do that? It does not
make sense to me, and it does not make sense to the people that live along the
communities of Highway 3, to undertake the name of the Red Coat Trail, when
historical fact has shown that route Highway 2 is not the Red Coat Trail. Why is it that they would have made‑‑what
reasoning did the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship give to the
Minister of Highways to show that there was some logical historical significance
to support the conclusion or the recommendation?
Mr. Findlay: First, I want to point out to the member,
this is 1994 and not 1991. There have
been lots of meetings and discussions going on over the course of time. I do not know what the member says to the
people on Highway 2. Why is the Red Coat
Trail in Saskatchewan and Alberta on Highway 2?
If the member wants to take up the reasons why, he should speak to the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship.
There is a dispute going on, and I do not think it is healthy for
communities to get into a dispute when they both can benefit if we promote both
routes as tourism routes and they are designated. If the people along Highway 2 feel very
strongly that it should be called the Red Coat Trail, people along Highway 3
feel very strongly it should be called the Boundary Trail Commission, and that
is great. They both got what they want.
Mr. Reid: Well, suppose another set of communities
along another provincial highway came along and said, we want to call our
highway the Red Coat Trail. What is to
stop them from having their highway named the Red Coat Trail as well? Is there no basis for the decisions based on
historical fact in this province?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, excuse me if I missed
something here, but there is only one trail in the province called the Red Coat
Trail at this time. [interjection] If the member would just let me finish, he
is trying to say somebody else could get the designation. No, there would not be another route
somewhere else called the Red Coat Trail.
There is one route called the Boundary Trail Commission; there is
another one called the Red Coat Trail. I
think those are both different in name.
If he wants to argue the case about historical significance, I am not
the minister who is getting to get involved in that.
Mr. Reid: I would have thought that, since there had
been successive Ministers of Highways and Transportation over the years,
throughout the 1980s and up until 1994, successive Ministers of Highways and
Transportation have refused to designate Highway 2 as the Red Coat Trail
because, based on historical fact, Highway 2 did not represent the closest
point to the original trail, whether it be the Boundary Commission Trail, the
North West Mounted Police Trek or the Red Coat Trail, whatever designation you
want to put on it. Highway 2 did not
represent the closest in historical fact.
I do not understand why the government made that
decision. It is contrary to the wishes
of the people. Does the minister not
have some committee or a body of people that makes recommendations to the
Department of Highways and Transportation for the naming of certain routes
within the province? Is there not a body
of people that the minister has within his department or other government
departments that makes recommendations for the naming of these routes?
Mr. Findlay: To answer the latter part of the member's
question first, there is a highway naming committee in Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, which we have a member on.
They make recommendations, so if you want to take up that dispute, speak
to that ministry. They have clearly
given us indication last fall that they were prepared to have it named the Red
Coat Trail.
If the member is taking the side of one group of citizens,
remember there are two groups of citizens out there, and you have to find a
compromise that is reasonable in all cases as opposed to just taking one side
and saying to heck with the other group of people. I mean, just be a little bit reasonable in
the process. The committee is under
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship for naming of highways.
Mr. Reid: What position did the representative of the
Highways and Transportation department take to those meetings on behalf of the
department with respect to the naming of the highway the Red Coat Trail, and
what was the recommendation?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, our member of the
committee does not take a position on the historical significance. He is there to follow up the decision of the
committee on the naming of the highway.
Mr. Reid: So then why do we have a member of the
department sitting on that committee?
Are there not other duties then that he can be undertaking if they are
just going to sit there and listen? Why
can we not do it by letter back and forth between the departments, or why does
the minister not talk with his colleague, the Minister of Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) if they want to know what happened in those
committees? Why do we have somebody
sitting there if they are not going to partake in the activities or the
discussions?
Mr. Findlay: I think the member must realize he is in the
Estimates of Highways and Transportation and our job is to maintain and build
highways across the province. Our member
is there to give the members of the committee the information on types of
signs, distance between signs and that sort of information. We are not there to talk about historical
significance. We are here to build
highways. We spend $109 million a year
on capital and about $120 million on maintenance. That is our job. It is not fighting over who is right and who
is wrong in historical fact. Our job is
getting the highways built for today's people and tomorrow's people.
Mr. Reid: Mr. Acting Chairperson, it seems strange that
the minister has no input from his department.
If somebody came along and said, let us call this the Donald Duck
Highway, would the minister's department accept something like that if it was a
recommendation of the department? Do you
not have any input into the process here?
You have a committee that you say you have a participant
sitting on to name the highways. If that
is the case, then why did we not have some other name? I am sure there are other historically
significant names that we could have chosen for No. 2 Highway that would have
represented the interests of the area and caused it to be furthered in the
interests of tourism for that part of the province. It would have given true historical fact in
the naming of the Provincial Trunk Highway No. 3 as the Red Coat and the North
West Mounted Police Trail and the Boundary Commission Trail, as well. We could have represented true historical
fact here.
Why did we not choose some other name from the
recommendation committee? They must have
been doing some work over a period of time, and then we could have had all of
the communities happy. Now we have none
of them happy, because there is not true historical fact represented here.
Mr. Findlay: Well, the member really takes the side of one
group of people. I can assure him that the
Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mr. Gilleshammer) has met with
representation from both groups. [interjection]
* (1600)
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Order, please. The honourable member for Transcona has asked
a question. Perhaps he could wait and
listen to the answer now.
Mr. Findlay: One group, some years ago, chose to call
themselves the Boundary Trail Commission.
That was their choice. That is
what they chose. They did not choose the
Red Coat Trail. So the people along
Highway 2 felt the name was open for them to request. It had not been used elsewhere. You are trying to argue the two are the
same. The names are quite
different. Culture, Heritage and
Citizenship, in the process of their analysis, obviously will have taken that
all into consideration.
Mr. Reid: Then maybe the minister can explain why the
Red Coat Trail, Provincial Trunk Highway No. 2 does not extend all the way to
the limits of the city of Winnipeg then, why it only has a starting and a
stopping point?
Mr. Findlay: If he would explain what the starting and
stopping points are.
Mr. Reid: If the minister had the opportunity to travel
provincial trunk highways, he would see that there is only signage in certain
locations along that highway, and it does not go all the way, and that it veers
off and it goes south towards the border, so the whole highway itself is not
designated as the Red Coat Trail. There
has been a deviation from that, and it goes down towards the border towards
Emerson, which is the true historical point where the treks took place.
So you have a mixing up of the information for the
people. You are going to bring the
tourists in from the States, and you are going to run them up through the point
of Emerson and then you are going to put them onto the provincial trunk
highway. Why did we not just do Highway
No. 3 as the original point in the first place, and then it would have been
representative of true historical fact?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chair, I think the member is quite
confused now. Boundary Commission
people, whoever they are, requested the designation on the route that is on the
map. If you pick up this year's map, you
will find it very clearly identified, Boundary Commission Trail. [interjection]
I have the map in front of me, and it starts at Highway 75 on 243. It works its way across up to Highway 3. That is the Boundary Trail Commission.
[interjection]
If the member would get a map and look at the right‑hand
side, up along 8 and 9 on the right‑hand side, he will see the
designation called Boundary Commission‑N.W.M.P. Route, Commission des
frontières‑Route de le police à cheval du Nord‑Ouest. That does not say Red Coat Trail, I am
sorry. The Red Coat Trail is not
designated on the map.
Mr. Reid: Well, then the minister should maybe get out
and drive his car, never mind just looking at the map, and drive along
Provincial Trunk Highway No. 2, and he will see that he has signs posted for
the Red Coat Trail along Highway No. 2.
They do not come all the way to the city of Winnipeg, and they go to the
border of Saskatchewan. There is a
starting point and a stopping point. So
what is the historical significance of naming Provincial Trunk Highway No. 2 as
the Red Coat Trail? Why are you putting
the signs up? Why are you wasting the
time of the people? Why are you putting false
information along the highways when the Red Coat Trail is not Highway No. 2?
Highway No. 3 more closely represents the historical fact
of this province. You have the Red Coat
Trail shown as No. 2 along the highway.
You have no reference to it on the map here, but you will name
Provincial Trunk Highway No. 3 as the Boundary Commission North West Mounted
Police Trail. Why are you not showing
Highway No. 2 then? You do not even have
all the information posted for the tourists on the map. Why are you going one way with one thing and
not all the way with the information for the people that are travelling those
routes? Why do you have a starting and
stopping point on the designation of PTH 2 as the Red Coat Trail?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, I do not know what
the member is arguing now. First he was
saying people get confused. I show on
the map, it says only one trail, so I do not see how they get confused. He has gotten totally confused now‑‑oh,
if you get up to the highway, you will see the signs. You argued that people coming in at Emerson
will get confused. They have the
map. The only thing they are going to
see is Boundary Commission Trail. If
they want to follow it, they follow it.
The member does not think that this map just dropped on our
desks yesterday. It takes a long time to
prepare. The Boundary Commission process
had not reached‑‑I am sorry, the Red Coat Trail process had not
been completed at the time the map process started, so I would have to assume
it will be on next year.
Mr. Reid: This minister is responsible for the
department. What areas are you going to
show on your next year's map indicating where the starting and the stopping
point of the Red Coat Trail is?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, the next issuance of
the map, which will probably be two years, it will be shown as starting at the
junction of Highways 2 and 3 west of Winnipeg, going all the way to the
Saskatchewan border, where the Red Coat Trail across Saskatchewan and Alberta
starts.
Mr. Reid: I guess we have debated this one a fair
amount. I do not agree with the decision
that the minister has made, and his colleague the Minister of Culture, Heritage
and Citizenship has made, with respect to the naming of Provincial Trunk
Highway No. 2 as the Red Coat Trail, because it does not represent historical
fact in the province of Manitoba.
Successive Ministers of Highways and Transportation have
said in both governments‑‑New Democrat governments and Conservative
governments have said that they will not name it that. They have resisted that because it did not
represent true fact. Now you have a committee
that is in place that could come forward with an appropriate name that would
represent historical fact, if that is what the communities along Highway No. 2
want. They would adequately name that
highway to meet their needs. I am sure
they could come forward with their own recommendations if they have not already
and that we could have named that and we could have avoided all of this
confusion and all of this discussion that is taking place.
Now we are going to have one group that already have their
highway named as the Boundary Commission and North West Mounted Police Route,
and we have the Red Coat Trail, which to me represents the very same thing as
the North West Mounted Police Trek and the route they took along the Boundary
Commission Trail.
So for purely historical reasons here I would have thought
we would have done something that would have been right, and if you did not
want to get into the debate, follow the advice of the previous Ministers of
Highways and Transportation and do not get involved in the debate, and do not
name it.
I mean, you have the right, I believe, as the Minister of
Highways, not to post the signs. You are
still responsible for the department unless you were overruled by cabinet on
this matter, which I do not think would take place because it is not that
significant an issue for the government to deal with.
The minister had the choice not to post those signs, and we
would have had some representation of historical fact in the province, and we
could have chosen another name for Provincial Trunk Highway No. 2. We would have satisfied the tourism needs for
both groups, and everybody would have moved forward without having this debate
take place.
* (1610)
I just say to the minister, I think that the wrong decision
was made, and it has created a lot of animosities between the peoples in the various
communities needlessly. If we had done
things right in the first place that had been recommended by previous
ministers, all this could have been avoided.
Mr. Findlay: I think we have appropriately told the member
that there is a committee in Culture, Heritage and Citizenship which has looked
at all kinds of requests for naming, and they felt that it was appropriate at
this time to do this in 1994.
I can assure the member, I have spent most of my life in
Manitoba. I was born and raised
here. There are many trails across
Manitoba where the North West Mounted Police travelled.
There are many areas that could be called the Red Coat
Trails, if you want to call it that‑‑the Ellice Trail, to name
another one. There are probably some
further north where treks took place, where people came into this province with
the Mounties, with the North West Mounted Police, at various forts. All kinds of trails existed.
I think that over time we have to give recognition to what
happened in the past. If we are going to
fight over whether the Boundary Commission Trail is really the Red Coat Trail,
I mean, in name they are quite different, very, very different.
If he wants to take up the dispute further, speak to
Culture, Heritage and Citizenship. We
just put the signs up.
Mr. Reid: The minister has to admit that he has some
say in whether the signs go up. There
were signs that were made in the past and were ready for posting in past years. I know that.
I have talked with the people who were involved, and the signs were
never posted. So it was a decision of
his department to post the signs.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 2.(a) Maintenance Program $51,079,200.
Mr. Kevin Lamoureux
(Inkster): I am just interested if the minister could
answer, if I could actually ask at this point in time, questions about, I
understand this is where we have the roadside maintenance. The satellite, you know those orbit garbage
cans, I wonder if the minister can just give some sort of indication, is that
something that is ongoing? Do we replace
these orbits every so often? Is this, in
the long term, going to be something that the province is going to be
keeping? Are we looking at some other
form of roadside garbage disposal? Just
what are the intentions of this minister and the government to do with these?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, in answer to the
member's question, we have about 50 orbits in the province right now. They have been a bit of a symbol of our
highways over the years, and clearly we do need to have waste receptacles for
people to stop at as opposed to throwing garbage on the roadside.
We are looking at a different design for waste
receptacles. Right now, it is a little
hole you throw this material in, and then you have to go in and manually with
your hands dig it out. In today's
standard, that is not a very efficient process.
A more efficient process would be a container to throw the garbage in, a
container you can just take and empty or a container you can haul away and
empty. It would be a much more efficient
way to operate.
So we are looking at a design of that nature that would
replace the orbit with something that is easy to throw garbage into and very
easy to collect it from or dump it out of for the employees.
Mr. Lamoureux: The primary reason why I asked is I had a
member of my family who had seen them and posed the question, and I really did
not know the answer. But, we are in fact
looking at replacing them with some other form of a collection bin.
He had made reference to the fact that, again, I believe he
said it is 10 seconds till orbit or something of that nature, and they counted
back from 10. He said it just did not
seem to work out, or do we expect to stop the car in 10 seconds if we are going
100 kilometres an hour? I thought it was
somewhat humorous when we actually entered into the discussion, but I am
pleased to hear in fact that the government is looking at getting some other
off‑the‑roadside garbage disposal put in place because at times it
does appear somewhat messy.
Mr. Findlay: Just in that context, I remind the members of
some very good community work that is being done. The 4‑H students for years have been
cleaning up roadsides across the province, usually the first Saturday in May,
and do an excellent job.
This year these nine or 10 rotary clubs in Winnipeg have
designated the entire Perimeter as their collection area. Each rotary club has taken about eight
kilometres, and they did the first cleanup about two Saturdays ago, or it would
be three Saturdays ago, I guess, and then they did some more work a week ago
tonight on the Perimeter. On the first
go around, they figured they did about 60 percent. They collected 1,112 garbage bags of garbage
around the Perimeter of Winnipeg. There
is a lot of garbage out there, and there is a very significant investment in
beautifying our Perimeter by the rotary clubs of Winnipeg. I congratulate them for it.
This is the first year they have done it. They will be each taking eight kilometres,
and we will be putting a sign up to give them credit for the eight kilometres
they are cleaning up. We expect them to
do it for a period of time, and they may well do it more than once a year.
Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Acting Chairperson, just to acknowledge
the minister's comments, I concur in terms of the phenomenal effort that is put
in from organizations such as that. I
know we have in the past introduced a private members' bill, The Beverage
Containers Act I believe is the name. I
think we are even reintroducing it this year, or I believe it went through our
caucus again for reintroduction.
A part of that is to actually have a charge for bottles,
alcoholic bottles, rye, and that sort of bottle, with the idea‑‑we came
across it by a tour that we made of rural Manitoba where the comments were
there is so much glass out in the ditches and if you had some sort of a charge,
many of the volunteer organizations, whether it is the 4‑H or the Rotary,
if there are those bottles and they knew there was some value to it, you would
probably even get more participation from other groups.
Otherwise, Mr. Acting Chairperson, I am quite prepared to
pass the line.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 2.(a) Maintenance Program $51,079,200‑‑pass.
2.(b)(1) Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,176,200‑‑pass.
2.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $472,300.
Mr. Reid: There is a section there under 2.(b)(2)
Grants. Can the minister explain the
$65,300 in Grants, and could he give me a breakdown of where the grants went
to?
Mr. Findlay: As the member can see in the book, it says
Transportation Association of Canada, so that is where the grant goes. It is all to them.
Mr. Reid: Maybe the minister can advise me on
this. I believe his department has in
the past given grants to Canada Safety Council, the Manitoba Safety Council. What subdepartment would that fall under?
Mr. Findlay: It is under DDVL.
Mr. Reid: I will ask the question under that
subdepartment when we get to it. One
last question here. Under Activity
Identification in the Supplementary Estimates, extraordinary maintenance
activities are identified. Can you
explain that for me, please, so I have just an understanding of what it means,
extraordinary maintenance activities?
Mr. Findlay: Generally referred to as over and above
general maintenance or general maintenance standards. It would be such things as routing, crack
filling, brushing, or extra gravel on roads that need more than just a normal
standard of gravel application for whatever reason. Extraordinary maintenance can mean a number
of things over and above the normal standard that would be used on that
particular road. It may only be on a
section of the road that needs it.
* (1620)
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): 2.(b)(2) Other Expenditures $472,300‑‑pass.
2.(c)(1) Contracts, Salaries and Employee Benefits
$760,900.
Mr. Reid: There has been a reduction of four staff
years for contracts and the explanation that is given at the bottom of the page
in Supplementary Estimates indicates:
four positions eliminated due to regionalization and consolidation of
the clerical support services. I thought
that when the regionalization took place that these people moved into those
functions already at the start of that process.
Why are we seeing more people now being affected by the move, especially
in clerical support services?
Mr. Findlay: Mr. Acting Chairperson, two of the positions
are clerical SYs and I guess modern technology moves in, use of word processors
means you need less typists, and in an overall process of regionalization, a
certain degree of work efficiency was created and two more SYs were deemed not
necessary during that process. So
between word processors, increased efficiency, four SYs were deemed not to be
necessary to get the same amount of work done.
Mr. Reid: I thought when we moved into the
decentralization of the contract handling, if my understanding was correct of
the process, that the people were going to go with that work, and it was going
to be the same amount of work involved in the functions under Contracts. Maybe I should ask the question then. Has the workload decreased from the number of
contracts that have been handled by the department? What volume of contracts are we seeing in
comparison to past years?
Mr. Findlay: In answer to the direct question, which was
has the workload decreased in terms of contracts, no, it has not, but the
process by which contracts are handled, you just do not do the same process
forever and a day. Man has a brain and
he uses it or a woman has a brain and uses it to increase the efficiency and be
able to do the same amount of work with less staff hours. So, over the course of time, it takes less
staff hours to do the same amount of work.
I do not think that is particularly earth‑shattering news, and the
department, in terms of trying to keep its costs down, has found that four
positions will no longer be necessary to do the same workload.
Mr. Reid: That was quite the answer that the minister
gave there to justify the elimination of four more. He has also, by the information that he has
provided and I thank him for the information, vacancies under that department
now, three by his own records. So we
have cut four and we have three vacancies out of a total of what originally was
24 people. We are down nearly a third in
our complement of people for that department.
So I am not sure how they are going to maintain the requirements of the
operation. It will be interesting to
see.
I have no further questions.
The Acting Chairperson
(Mr. Sveinson): Item 2.(c) Contracts (1) Salaries and
Employee Benefits $760,900‑‑pass; (2) Other Expenditures $144,300‑‑pass.
Item 2.(d) Bridges and Structures (1) Salaries and Employee
Benefits $1,916,000‑‑[interjection]
Mr. Reid: It is interesting, Mr. Acting Chairperson,
that the previous Minister of Highways and Transportation is up to his old
tricks, where in the past Estimates he was hoping to rush through them, and he
is attempting to do the same thing through this process here today, too, trying
to help out his colleague obviously.
I know the previous Minister of Highways and Transportation
let the river run over its banks around the Swan River area last year, and, of
course, it washed out the bridges and created all kinds of havoc for the people
of Swan River and general area. Maybe
the now‑Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Findlay) can give me
an update on what is happening with the new work that is‑‑or
bridges that are hopefully being put in place for the Swan River area along the
Bell River, I think it was, and Provincial Trunk Highway 10. We will give this current Minister of
Highways and Transportation the credit for getting that work done, I suppose,
if it is completed.
(Madam Chairperson in
the Chair)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, the episode at Swan River
is not anybody's fault. I am sure the
member will understand. I can remember
going up there in 1988 when there were dust storms in southern Manitoba. You could not see the horizon for several
days. Up there, they had major, major
flooding because of a fast melt in the spring and heavy rains, and to go back
and see it happen again because of the water coming off of the mountain‑‑Highways
ended up having 32 structures on PTHs and PRs that were affected as a result of
the flood. Thirty‑two structures,
that is a lot.
They have all been repaired, with the exception of the Bell
River bridge, which was rebuilt this past winter. A Bailey‑type bridge beside it has been
used and is continuing to be used. The
Bell River bridge is structurally complete.
Paving tender will be let on very soon, with the expectation it will be
paved in July and then subsequently opened to the traffic. Just keep in mind there are 32 structures up
there affected by that massive flooding.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for the
information. Of course, my previous
comments about the former Minister of Highways were all tongue in cheek. I know that it was an act of God that caused
those problems, and I know that he will be listening to my comments from some
other point.
With the recent federal government announcements that were
done in conjunction with the province, relating to the infrastructure program,
I looked through the program announcements and there was considerable
expenditure of funds and amount of work that was dedicated towards the bridge
programs for the various LGDs, RMs.
Maybe the minister can give me some idea how that program is going to
affect any of the bridgework for his department, whether it be the Bridge
Assistance Program that they have or any other of the activities for the
department relating to bridges or structures.
* (1630)
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, none of the bridges that the
municipalities have applied for infrastructure funding on are any of them on
the PTHs or PRs, because that is 100 percent ours, and they will never opt to
pay 33 percent of the cost of those bridges.
With regard to our $400,000 Bridge Assistance Program,
again we do not expect those requests to affect the requests under this
program. They may well be the same
bridges if they would have requested under our $400,000 Bridge Assistance
Program. Here they pay 50 percent; under
the infrastructure, if it is accepted, then they pay 33 percent.
It is the same with Grant‑in‑Aid streets. They can be in either category, but if the
municipality gets it funded under infrastructure, I am sure they will do it
there. The streets that are not
successful there or bridges that are not successful there, they will come to
our Bridge Assistance or Grant‑in‑Aid Programs for the particular
streets or bridges. We do not see it
reducing what we have in the budget in any sense. Particularly in Grant‑in‑Aid,
there have been a lot more requests than ever been money to serve. In bridges, although the number of requests
have not been that extensive, municipalities are fully aware that there is not
a lot of funding available here and probably the applications have not been
coming in.
So anything that is funded under infrastructure is a real
bonus for us all. It is 33 cents for us,
33 cents for them, and we bring 33 cents in from outside the province for every
dollar of cost. It will not affect what
we are doing. Maybe we could say it
supplements what we do.
Mr. Reid: I guess time will tell then whether or not
the municipalities require either assistance or have other bridges. I asked that question because I was wondering
if it was going to have impact on programs, that the government might have
struck some agreements with the R.M.s on certain requirements for bridges or
structures, as we have in the past, in something that might have been already
in the planning stage and maybe certain plans had been started when the
announcement came along. I was just
wondering if there was an impact on any of those decisions that had been made.
If there are any changes that do occur, an R.M. has changed
their mind about going through the R.M. Bridge Assistance Program, is it
possible to divert any of those monies from that program into the Grant‑in‑Aid
for the communities that might require?
Mr. Findlay: From Bridge Assistance?
Mr. Reid: Yes, into.
Mr. Findlay: I think it is fair to say at this point, it
is very hard to predict what the end result will be because municipalities are
obviously putting a lot of dollars into streets and bridges and other
activities in their communities, something they had not really budgeted for
much in advance.
Yes, they all have capital reserves. Whether they have much left in that capital
reserve, or any further desire to do much in the way of Grant‑in‑Aid
or the bridge program remains to be seen.
So I cannot prejudge whether we would shift money in or out. Administratively that is always possible, but
at this stage it is impossible to know what the end result will be.
A lot of letters have gone out to various municipalities in
recent days on Grant‑in‑Aid applications, approving an awful lot of
expenditure. Now, whether they are able
to meet their‑‑they decide whether we eventually pay the
money. They go through the process of
the bridge work or the street work, submit the bills, and we pay the amount
that we had indicated we would. If they
do not do the job, the bills do not come in.
We will only find out over the course of the next number of months
whether they did or did not do their part in the bridge program or the Grant‑in‑Aid
program, so it is very much an unknown question at this time.
I would have to suspect some municipalities will be unable
to do a Grant‑in‑Aid or bridge because they want to use it‑‑do
the expenditure where it is cheapest, and that is on the 33‑cent dollar
projects that they have successfully had go through that process.
Mr. Reid: I want to narrow the discussion down a bit
into a question that I have had on my mind for some time. I know I have had the opportunity to travel
to various northern communities throughout the last four years, and one of the
areas that I have gone to on more than one occasion is Cross Lake. I have looked at the ferry, and I am not
going to talk specifically about the ferry service here right now. I am more interested in the bridge that had
been‑‑from what I have seen from the Northern Flood Agreement, the
intent of my questions last week in Question Period was to find out some more
detail about the bridge itself.
Now I was told over the past, and maybe the department has
current figures relating to the cost of the construction of a bridge for the
Cross Lake‑Pipestone ferry crossing area.
Does the minister have figures here that are available to give me an
idea of what the current or up‑to‑date cost would be for the
construction of a bridge? Are there
certain standards that it would be constructed to that would be the same or
different than what one might expect on a PTH?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, the cost of the bridge, the
department's figures are about $10 million, and the standard for the
construction of the bridge would be exactly the same standards used elsewhere
in the province, particularly southern Manitoba I think the member is referring
to. The standards are the same, $10
million.
Mr. Reid: I take it then that is '94‑95 dollars
worth we are talking about here? Okay,
the minister indicates that is the case.
* (1640)
There was some discussion, and I have had a chance to look
at some of the information that is available relating to a proposed bridge, and
it is my understanding that the department has done some design work. Maybe the minister can indicate whether or
not the department has done any design work for a bridge and if it would be at
the current Pipestone ferry crossing location, or would it be at some other
point along that general area?
Mr. Findlay: The design work that has been done to this
point has only been preliminary, but that work has been done at the Pipestone
crossing.
Mr. Reid: Can the minister indicate then what he means
by preliminary. To what point has it
progressed? I do not understand the
preliminary planning.
Mr. Findlay: By preliminary we mean that the department
has done a profile of the depth of the water.
We know what appears would undoubtedly be the length of the bridge,
height. That is what is referred to as
preliminary. In terms of final design,
then you design exactly the length, height, width of piers and structure and
then you get the cost, you get more closely what the cost will be. That is why the $10 million is plus or minus,
some degree of margin of error. One
cannot be definitive of what it will be until you do your final design, but
that is a fairly significant design. One
would not do that design until you felt you were in a position to move forward
with the construction, but it is not a cheap design.
Mr. Reid: No, I do not expect that it would be a cheap
design. I would think that it would be,
and I am glad the minister has already indicated, up to provincial standards
for PRs and PTHs.
Is the anticipated location for such a bridge at the
current Pipestone? So it would be at the
current location? Because it was my
understanding that there was some further discussion or some further thought
about relocating any construction of such a bridge to a point that was just
slightly further up the river from the current ferry crossing location, so that
when construction was undertaken it would not interrupt the ferry's operations,
and then when the bridge was completed of course the road allowance would then
swing over to the new bridge. Has there
been any consideration for that point?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, when we say at the Pipestone
crossing, we do not mean precisely right there.
It will be off a little bit such that during construction the normal
ferry crossing would not be interrupted.
So what the member says, it will be a little bit off such that you could
move the roads to it, but it will not be very far off. It is in the vicinity of what you call the
Pipestone Crossing. The ferry would
continue to operate during the construction period.
Mr. Reid: I know, and I take it by the minister's
information that there has been no serious consideration to this point given to
have further detailed designs undertaken.
Has there been any discussion within his own department or within the
minister's cabinet with respect to construction of such a bridge in the near
future? What point are we at in the
planning phase for the construction of this bridge?
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, from the department's point of
view it is a low‑volume‑use bridge.
Therefore, there are other bridges that would be ahead of it in terms of
priority, in terms of state of structure, amount of traffic per day sort of
analysis. We are in the process of
talking with Northern Affairs, and as they negotiate agreements, the level of
priority may be raised because of some other conditions of an agreement,
Northern Flood Agreement. In terms of
traffic volumes, it does not warrant the department moving forward any faster
at this stage than it currently is.
Mr. Reid: It is my understanding, and I guess this
would take away some of the responsibility from the department as far as the
construction costs would be concerned, but it is my understanding that there
was a decision by the arbitrator that was looking at the Northern Flood
Agreement appeals on behalf of the band and council, that had ruled in favour
of the band's position that the current ferry operations for the Pipestone
ferry crossing did not meet the needs of an all‑weather road. That was the decision of the arbitrator. I am sure the government has copies of that
decision as well.
The government is now in the process of appealing that
decision. I am not sure on what basis
because it was my understanding that the Northern Flood Agreement only allowed
appeals to be heard on the basis of jurisdiction or law, and I do not know
under what basis the appeal would fall under for those aspects. But if this appeal is heard and the decision
comes forward that the Northern Flood Agreement conditions for this bridge and
road were not met and that we have to move into a construction phase, how able
is the department to comply, and what period of time are we looking at to meet
the requirements for the construction of that bridge?
I would have thought that looking at past projects, that
there is a significant amount of lead time required to go through the planning
and design phase in addition to the actual construction phase for a project of
that magnitude. How are we going to be
able to comply if there is a decision that comes down soon on the appeal for
the NFA portion?
Mr. Findlay: Probably some of the elements of what the
member is raising are more reasonably asked under Northern Affairs because that
is where the agreement is negotiated.
I do not think he should be asking us to start into a
process for which there is not a final decision. He has already indicated there is an appeal
underway, and I do not think we should be prejudging the end result of that
process, but if that process does lead to a certain path that must be followed,
at least a two‑year period of lead‑up time to get prepared. The member talks about design. There is also an environmental licence that
has to be achieved. So there is a fair
lead‑up time here, but again, there is a significant cost. I guess I would be hard pressed to say that
we should start on a process towards an end goal till we know that we have to
start on that process or what the requirements of that process are.
So in due course we will find out the results of the appeal
to the arbitrator's decision and we will go from there. I am sure the member is fully aware, we do
not have $10 million sitting on the shelf.
There are lots of other bridges that want to be built, but if the
appeal, whatever the result is, it sets a certain direction, we will start on
that process, but there is a time, there is a significant run‑up time
before construction can start. Then
construction probably would take a couple of years.
Mr. Reid: I can appreciate what the minister is saying
here, but I am sure that, unless I judge him wrong, it would be better for the
Northern Flood Agreement conditions to be met from some other department's
budget versus his own Department of Highways and Transportation Capital
Program. So I can sympathize with his
position, or empathize with his position on that expenditure.
I take it from his comments then that because there is a
two‑year lead‑up in the design and environmental hearing process
that we had not even anticipated construction of this bridge for at least the
next two years and maybe a significantly longer period of time.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chairperson, it is fair to say, it is
not in our budget at this stage.
Department of Highways staff are in discussion with Northern Affairs on
this and other elements of the agreement, and decisions will flow in the course
of time.
* (1650)
Mr. Reid: I am glad that the minister indicates that
his department is talking with Northern Affairs or Native Affairs on this
issue. Is there any prospect or any
possibility, considering that there have been discussions between the two
departments, for this program to be cost shared with the federal government for
the construction of this bridge, which could possibly advance the construction
phase?
Mr. Findlay: At this point, we do not have any discussion
going on with the federal government, but if we get into a definitive path,
rest assured, we will be doing what we can to get federal government
commitment, as we do on many projects in the North, not always with success,
but we would certainly like to see some federal dollars, as you can
appreciate. This is one of many projects
in the North that people would like to have done, and I think the Government of
Canada has a lot of responsibility up there.
We have been picking up a lot of it over the course of time, and we have
to argue that they continue to stay involved in terms of dollar commitment.
Mr. Reid: I thank the minister for that. I guess then that as these matters progress
we will hear more about the decisions that are being made. If the arbitrator's ruling is upheld, of
course, I guess that would have to be a decision the minister and the
department would have to make in very short order to advance the Cross Lake
bridge project and put it on a higher point on his priority list for
construction. So I guess we will watch
the events as they unfold for that part.
With the decision by the rail lines to look at abandonment
of some of their branchline operations, what impact is that going to have on
the Bridges and Structures department?
Has any discussion taken place on what areas would have to be upgraded
to handle increased weights? There have
been certain applications made to the NTA for abandonment of lines,
unfortunately, I do not have the list here with me today right now, but I am
just wondering if the department is undertaking consideration for the upgrading
of bridges or structures along routes that were previously served by those rail
lines.
Mr. Findlay: Madam Chair, although it is a broad, sweeping
question, the general answer is, as applications come forward, we will have a
better idea of what roads might be affected to a greater extent in the future
than have been in the past.
But I think I better comment to the member that if you look
back over the last 15 years, we have certainly seen trucks get bigger, travel
faster, and we have seen a lot of commodities move from rail to road movement,
particularly, I have seen it in rural Manitoba, where they are talking fuel
movement, equipment movement, fertilizer movement, special crop movement. Those were commodities that used to go, 20
years ago, 15 years ago, even 10 years ago, a lot of them were on rail, if not
all.
Because of changing dynamics, costs, get the product to the
right place at the right time, a lot of it is now going by trucks. So we have seen a lot of shift in the last 15
years, particularly, of commodities onto trucks. We see more trucks; they are travelling
faster, greater weights, and the department has responded in terms of upgrading
bridges that are affected in this context up to this point in time, and it is
fair to say we will continue to do it over the next 10 or 15 years.
Another factor we have to keep in mind is that more and
more north‑south movement of goods, particularly Manitoba products going
south into the States, and a lot of that is going by truck. They are also seeing the rail shifting, the
way they run their operations, they will probably compete more aggressively in
the future to keep more of those commodities on the rail as opposed to on the
road, but it is the cost of evolution and it will be driven by a number of
factors. It is products, price,
timeliness of being able to meet the desires of the shipper or the person who
is paying the toll. So it is an ongoing
process.
I do not think there is any definitive line that says now,
all of a sudden, we have a greater problem than we used to have. It is a steady evolution of how goods are
moved and what roads that people want to use.
There is a continuous desire, you would say, up in the Swan River area
with the increased potential of movement of forest products. It is going to have an impact up there, there
is no question, and we will respond as the condition unfolds.
Madam Chairperson: Item 2.(d) Bridges and Structures (1)
Salaries and Employee Benefits $1,916,000‑‑pass; (2) Other
Expenditures $262,100‑‑pass; (3) Bridge Maintenance $866,900‑‑pass.
2.(e) Transport Compliance.
Mr. Reid: Madam Chair, last year the former Minister of
Highways provided information relating to the number of violations, type of
violations and actions.
Can the Minister of Highways provide us with similar
information for the current year?
Mr. Findlay: Total prosecutions for '93‑94 is 3,512
versus 3,552 the year before. They cover
a number of areas like overweights, oversize on public service vehicles, faulty
equipment and safety, driver and vehicle licensing, dangerous goods, hours of
service and violation regarding an oversize, overweight permit.
Of the 3,500 the vast majority of them, a little over a
thousand are in the category of overweights:
in '93‑94 it was 1,054; in '92‑93, 1,069, an amazing
similarity.
The next most important category is faulty equipment and
safety: 1,550 in '92‑93 and down
to 1,383 in '93‑94.
Madam Chairperson: Order, please. The hour being 5 p.m. and time for private
members' hour, I am leaving the Chair with the understanding that we will
reconvene at 8 p.m. this evening in Committee of Supply in the Department of
Industry, Trade and Tourism.
Call in the Speaker.
IN SESSION
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
House Business
Hon. Jim Ernst
(Government House Leader): Madam Deputy
Speaker, there have been discussions amongst House leaders to determine
Estimates sequences for later this evening with the expectation that Industry,
Trade and Tourism may finish at some point this evening before committee is
willing to rise.
Therefore I would ask if you would canvass the House to see
if there is unanimous consent to set aside all other Estimates, and the
Department of Energy and Mines would be here in the Chamber following the expiration
of the Estimates of the Department of Industry, Trade and Tourism either before
or after ten o'clock as the case may be.
Madam Deputy Speaker
(Louise Dacquay): Is there unanimous consent to commence Energy
and Mines immediately upon the conclusion of Industry, Trade and Tourism in the
House section of Committee of Supply either before or after 10? [agreed]
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Res. 18‑‑Water Allocation
Ms. Marianne Cerilli
(Radisson): I move, seconded by the honourable member for
Transcona (Mr. Reid), that
WHEREAS the water allocation process in Manitoba seems to
be in disarray; and
WHEREAS there is no framework for an integrated water
allocation program for surface and ground water aquifers in Manitoba; and
WHEREAS there is currently no process to verify that water
use is in compliance with water allocated in licences; and
WHEREAS the Pembina Valley water diversion assessment
process was suspended due to the lack of flow information and actual allocation
levels; and
WHEREAS the government has failed to seriously consider
conservation and demand‑side management as applied to the issue of water
use; and
WHEREAS the current licence allows for up to twenty years
of water allocation without periodic review.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of
Manitoba urge the provincial government to consider undertaking a public review
of water licensing and allocation in Manitoba and consider placing a moratorium
on major new water allocation licences until this review is completed; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Assembly urge the
government to include in the proposed study a review and suggestions for
amendments to The Manitoba Water Rights Act which would incorporate sustainable
development principles and practices into the act which governs water use.
Motion presented.
Ms. Cerilli: Madam Deputy Speaker, this resolution flows
from a number of issues that I have been dealing with since I was first elected
in 1990. I think I deal with water
issues in some ways more than any other issues in the province of Manitoba.
I know that the Minister of Environment (Mr. Cummings) also
has said that he thinks one of the biggest concerns in the province is water,
particularly ground water in a number of areas.
We know there is contamination of ground water, and also there is a
number of areas where surface water is being contaminated at a mad rate in this
province by unsustainable industrial practices.
The resolution I think proposes a number of suggestions
that would try to alleviate this problem.
The government has come forward with a policy booklet on water policy
but it does not address a number of these areas.
The proposal to have a review of water allocation is
necessary because there are so many examples where water licences are given out
to so many users that the water is overallocated from a certain water
basin. There are also instances
throughout the province where there is not any monitoring of how much water is
actually used and that causes problems when we come to trying to do assessments
and figure out what the sustainability of certain industrial practices or
certain developments would be.
There are also concerns with respect to the government's
lack of attention to conservation and demand‑side management, and we are
going to have to have some kind of a system of monitoring water so that we can
see if there is any progress on these areas.
What we are proposing is that we start metering water that
is used, particularly, I would say, in some of the agricultural developments
that use quite a bit of water.
One of the practices that has been criticized in our part
of the world is our wasteful irrigation.
We know that there are more efficient ways to do irrigation, and that
could be incorporated into water policy.
Those kinds of technologies could be required and that would lead, I
think, to solve some of the problems that are affecting certain parts of the
province.
One of the other things that is recommended in the
resolution is a close look at The Water Rights Act. This act is very much out of date. It is not in keeping with our new approach to
integrating environment and development and looking at health and justice
issues along with that. There are a
number of disputes in the province with respect to water rights and who has
rights in a certain area and how that affects downstream users and how that
affects users who are upstream. All of
these things, I think, have to be looked at so that we are going to bring in
legislation and regulations that are going to deal with the realities of moving
into the next century.
Madam Deputy Speaker, the Assiniboine diversion was one of
the projects referenced in the resolution.
It is a proposal to provide water to what some call the Pembina Valley,
Pembina triangle area. The proponents of
the project have changed that proposal a number of times and currently there is
some question as to the status of the project.
There is now the proposal to divert water from the Red River instead of
the Assiniboine. There is a large amount
of concern with the complete plan for this development, and it raised a wide
variety of questions with respect to how Manitoba is managing its water
resources, particularly in the southern part of the province.
I do not want to make light, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the
serious concerns that certain parts of the province have with respect to the
availability of water for their region, but I want to go on record as saying
that we cannot continue to allow our policy to encourage overconsumption and
the unsustainable use of water and start to divert water from other regions so
that we can allow one region to continue practices without looking at how they
can conserve before they start looking at alternative sources.
There are all sorts of areas in the province that I have
been made aware of, Madam Deputy Speaker, in my couple of years as the critic
for Environment for our party, where there have been serious water
contamination. Some of them that come to
mind are the Whitemouth area, where I have had people tell me that they were
made ill from drinking water that was from their public water source; the
people who had to have water shipped in the Stonewall‑Stony Mountain area
from the Bristol disaster; and we have the ongoing concern with Winnipeg's
water source and the dispute around the mine in Ontario and the lack of
sensitive area regulations around the Shoal Lake watershed. These are some of the issues that come to
mind.
I have spoken also recently about the impact on Lake
Winnipeg. I am becoming more aware of
the cumulative impact on Hudson Bay.
When we take all of the water that is flowing from the south and ends up
in the estuary in Hudson Bay, there is a lot of concern about that ecosystem
and how important it is with the small micro‑organisms that end up
feeding a lot of the larger wildlife.
Someone from the other side mentioned zebra muscles. That is also of concern, and I would think
that water policy would also deal with that issue.
* (1710)
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would encourage the
members opposite to consider this resolution carefully. I think that it is forward looking and it is
not something that is unreasonable. I
think that they would acknowledge, as the Minister of Environment (Mr.
Cummings) has on a number of occasions, that there are serious concerns with
water allocation and water use in this province. I think that the members could find that this
would be a supportable resolution, that it is time that we start taking seriously
some of the problems that are affecting our environment in Manitoba and not
continue to sort of placate or accuse those raising concerns of fearmongering
or being ecofreaks or all the other terms that individuals who raise concern
are called.
I want to share with the House one short story of, I think
it was a couple of years, ago when a woman phoned my office and she was very
upset, very distraught. She had just
purchased a farm west of the city of Winnipeg near Brandon, and she had found
out that the ground water was contaminated and how helpless they felt and how
ripped off they felt, and they were. It
shows the seriousness of the problem that we are facing.
When I looked on the map in the federal state‑of‑environment
report, there was a map that highlighted the entire province, and it showed
that that region of the province was a hot spot, that the region that is near
the armed forces base there where the ground water is known to be contaminated‑‑I
think the members opposite should use this as a chance to enter into some
discussion with respect to the impact of the kinds of industries that we have
had on our waterways.
I know the members opposite know about my little canoe trip
down the Assiniboine River a couple of summers ago where I took a number of
photographs. I have since put those into
a video which was enjoyable to make and the number of different industries that
you could see along the bank and the number of different impacts that you could
see‑‑one of the things I remember that was very striking was the
riverbank used as a garbage dump where there were metres and metres of concrete
where one of the highways had been torn up and the concrete was just dumped
onto the Assiniboine riverbank. [interjection]
I am not sure if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) is
suggesting that is some kind of a riverbank reinforcement project, but one of
the other things that was very striking was the long bridge supports that were
still standing that had the metres marked on them. Some of them went up as high as 17 metres,
and then when you looked down the water through much of the Assiniboine River
it was not more than a couple of inches deep. [interjection] The member for
Emerson (Mr. Penner) is talking about flood waters, and I would ask the member
for Emerson to look at the erosion, as well, on the riverbanks in a lot of
these areas and the effect that is having, particularly in the North, the
concern with mercury from the muskeg and peat.
I think there are a number of other issues throughout the
province. The Minister of Energy and
Mines (Mr. Orchard) is mentioning beavers.
Hon. Donald Orchard
(Minister of Energy and Mines): They
kill more trees than Louisiana‑Pacific will.
Ms. Cerilli: The Minister of Energy and Mines should get
with the program. We are talking about
water now. There is a resolution on the
table to deal with the water allocation policy of this government and ensuring
that we are going to have more sustainable use of water in Manitoba.
With that, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would end my remarks and
welcome the chance to hear from members opposite and members from the Liberal
opposition as well. I would encourage
all members of the House to support the resolution.
Thank you.
Hon. Albert Driedger
(Minister of Natural Resources): Madam
Deputy Speaker, there is an old saying that says, ignorance is bliss. I believe in that statement to quite a
degree. They also say a little knowledge
sometimes is dangerous‑‑a little knowledge. You combine ignorance and a little knowledge
and the member for Radisson, and the member for Radisson combined with those
two, then you end up having a resolution such as the kind she has put forward
here. [interjection] Well, sometimes the truth has to be told.
This resolution basically is an insult to the people that
have been working with Water Resources for many, many years. If the member had made a little effort to try
and get herself acquainted with what is happening in the department of Water
Resources, what is happening under The Water Rights Act, then you would not
have a resolution of this nature, because if the member had taken the liberty
to take and either question or write, as she has done with other issues, to my
department or to the Department of Environment‑‑I do not know
whether she has a copy of the policy basically applying Manitoba's water
policies‑‑I could have told her all these things and then she would
not have had to take and make sort of a semi‑fool of herself with this
resolution, where she basically is accusing the department and government of
being irresponsible. The kinds of things
that the member has put into this resolution are irresponsible as far as I am
concerned.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to, for the member's
benefit, tell her that in 1989 when this government formed the Sustainable
Development organization, at that time they started developing a water
policy. That was in 1989. That policy is now the water bible, if I could
use that expression. This is what is
going to govern all the activities related to water in the province.
The member made some very vague reference to this thing and
said it did not cover all the things. I
would suggest that the member then take and read what it all covers, especially
on the second page if she will read the seven items that are basically covered,
how water issues will be dealt with in this province‑‑very
irresponsible statements.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I just want to say that this water
bible or this water policy that was going to dictate all the activities of
water in the province is going to be circulated to all municipalities. In fact, every member in this Legislature is
going to receive one of those things and then they can read it.
An Honourable Member: Are we?
* (1720)
Mr. Driedger: Yes.
How did we arrive at the water policy?
Basically through sustainable development.
In 1989 this process started. The document and policy it contains were
developed following a very extensive consultation process. They reflect the views and inputs of a number
of government agencies, the general public, the Manitoba Round Table on
Environment and Economy and a number of other interest groups.
We are very grateful for the people who have spent and put
a lot of time and effort into bringing this water policy to fruition to this
point. That is why I am critical of the
member bringing forward this kind of resolution, because if she had checked a
little bit she could have found out that things are well in place.
At the present time, Madam Deputy Speaker, the legal
instrument used to administrate water allocation is The Water Rights Act. Under that act over the years‑‑and
it has worked well‑‑we have been administrating ground water, the
rivers, any water at all under the licensing system. The only people who do not have to be
licensed under that act are those who use it for domestic use.
That is in place right now, and the member says nothing has
happened, the government has been irresponsible. I take exception to that, because the
Department of Water Resources has been there a long time, people knowing the
issues, the problems that are there, and certainly, this government's action in
terms of dealing with the environment and with water issues is second to
none. We brought forward The Environment
Act that basically looks at contamination.
More improvements have been done in the last number of years, in the
last five, six years than has ever been done before.
Madam Deputy Speaker, water issues‑‑the member
for Radisson seems to think that she invented this issue of water. There have been water problems for hundreds
and hundreds of years. Wars have been
fought about waters. It is not a new
issue that she is bringing forward saying that people are concerned about water. It has been going all along. To some degree, we have taken in Manitoba and
in Canada, because we are so blessed with the water that we have, we have taken
some of these things for granted over the past number of decades, but that has
changed in the last decade where we have come forward and addressed these
concerns.
I find it a little offensive, Madam Deputy Speaker, when
the member for Radisson continually opposes every project that is coming
forward. From the time that man came to
this world and started influencing some of the things that happen in the
environment, we have had an impact on it, but I think we are now in the process
of taking corrective measures to make sure, for example, the flooding that took
place at given times, even in the city of Winnipeg, under the process that is
in place now and with the people with a mindset like the member for Radisson,
the floodway would have never been built.
The moment any project comes forward, whether it is the
Louisiana‑Pacific project in Swan River, it is always, always,
negative. It is always negative, Madam
Deputy Speaker. When somebody talks of
irrigation anywhere at all, it is always negative. That is the reason I will not amend this
resolution. There are enough people here
who are going to put their points of view on the record, but the fact that she
took the liberty of bringing forward a resolution of this nature, I find
offensive. My Department of Water
Resources finds it offensive.
I would hope that somewhere along the line the member can
finally get up and smell the roses somewhere along the line about the reality
of life in terms of what is happening, and if she does not know, at least ask
before she goes off halfcocked and comes forward with all kinds of suggestions
that she cannot back up.
So, Madam Deputy Speaker, I know a bunch of my colleagues
want to speak on this resolution as well.
I just wanted to correct the record for some degree and once again say
that this policy is going to be distributed to all members. I hope she reads it as well and acquaints
herself with what is happening in the real world.
Thank you.
Mr. Brian Pallister
(Portage la Prairie): I am sure the other member will have time to
put her comments on the record. I would
like to take the opportunity to do the same.
I find I am in agreement with many of the comments of the
Minister of Natural Resources. The
resolution depicts an antidevelopment attitude which has become apparent to me
in my relatively brief time here and is characteristic of the no‑development
party opposite. In some of the WHEREASes
we see reference to the need for water police, for shorter licensing periods
and things like this.
I am afraid the member does not understand, and it is
unfortunate that she does not understand that agriculture irrigation is a very
important part of this province's make‑up, and as opposed to her
statements in Hansard of last year where she says that agricultural irrigation
is an example of nonsustainable practices, she is sadly mistaken.
For the most part, certainly in this province the best
stewards of the resources that we have of land and of water are in fact the
practitioners of agricultural practice, the farmer. The farmer cares deeply about the long‑term
viability of their operation. The farmer
counts on those resources for their own livelihood and more than that, for the
livelihood of their children and their children's children. The comments of the member too frequently
reflect an urbanist point of view and are sadly out of step with the reality
outside of the Perimeter Highway. It is
sad to hear the comments and suggestions made by‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please.
Point of Order
Ms. Cerilli: I would ask for the member for Portage to
check Hansard and I think he would realize I was talking about improving the
technology used in irrigation. I do not
think I am antidevelopment and against any irrigation at all.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Radisson does not
have a point of order.
* * *
Mr. Pallister: I do not appreciate the interruptions of the
member. On June 22, 1993, Ms. Cerilli,
in this Chamber said: "Mr. Speaker,
the way this province is managing water resources does not reflect the priority
use. Irrigation is the most
unsustainable drain on water supplies."
In this House, she said that. Irrigation is not unsustainable in this
province. Do a little homework, I
suggest.
In other jurisdictions where the member no doubt consumes
vegetables produced there, such as Arizona, Texas, California, she will find
that sustainable practices are unfortunately not adopted, yet she no doubt
consumes the lettuce and cucumbers from those jurisdictions every winter while
she stands in this House and opposes development and irrigation practices in
Manitoba. Her and her‑‑what
was the term she used?‑‑ecofreaks like to think they are favouring
the environment and supporting it in this province, yet at the same time they
support unsustainable practices outside of this province.
I have a report in my hand that has not been released yet,
but I will refer to it. It addresses the
Assiniboine River corridor irrigation potential. It clarifies some things that need to be
clarified. For example, irrigation
development in the study area of the Assiniboine basin would require less
irrigation water to supplement natural precipitation than virtually any other
area in the western provinces‑‑less irrigation water applied per
acre in this jurisdiction, so the risk of salinization is reduced. Natural precipitation, which is still the
main source of crop water, will remove salts that may be added to the soil as a
result of irrigation. Do some
homework. Irrigation in this study area
is traditionally used on high‑value crops only and is used on a rotation
basis, once of every four years, not every year as is the practice in
California, no doubt where the member gets her kiwi fruit. Irrigation infrastructure, fewer delivery
structure would be required in Manitoba because the quality soils, class 1 to 3
soils, are in close proximity to the water in this province.
We have in this province incredible potential for
development in that area. Yet the member
opposite would tell us it is nonsustainable.
Yet the many good farmers who run irrigation operations recognize that
it is and must continue to be sustainable for the benefit of themselves and
their families.
The member does not understand that it is difficult for
private sector investment to occur in any case in an environment such as her
party has perpetuated whenever in power, and it does not behoove her to
restrict private sector investment when we recognize on this side of the House
that that is where true job creation, meaningful and real job creation occurs.
The cost to irrigate 60 acres of farmland would be in
excess of $40,000. That would be conservatively. So $40,000 is required to irrigate 60 acres
of farmland. It is prohibitively
expensive for people to get into it, and when they get into it, they do not
appreciate the myths perpetuated by the member opposite.
An Honourable Member: Why does McCain's want all their farmers to
be irrigators?
* (1730)
Mr. Pallister: The member chirps from her seat about
McCain's, failing to recognize the job creation that has occurred as a
consequence of McCain's presence in this province.
Again, I do believe, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the actual
development that has occurred in this province to date, such as breaking the
virgin prairie soil and cropping it, would have been impeded by the attitude of
the member opposite and her colleagues.
I believe they would still be demanding environmental investigations
take place before a farmer could crop a single acre of soil. It is an antidevelopment attitude, living in
the past.
Now because of the member's resolution, it gives me an
opportunity to correct some misinformation that was put on the record by the
Leader of the Second Opposition, the member for St. James (Mr. Edwards). The member for St. James has stated in the
Portage la Prairie Graphic that he is pleased.
When I expressed my concerns about the proposal a year ago, he said he
is pleased to see me come onside with what the Liberal Party has said for
years.
Well, first of all, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not have the
time to go through the hundreds of hours that I spent working with people in my
community on this issue prior to my election, but my interest began in 1989 and
it has continued since. I have taken the
same position from that time that I take today.
That is, we have a process called the Clean Environment Commission
process, and people should avail themselves of that process, present
information to that hearing process and get the information on record. If they have concerns, ask questions. That is what a free and open process is
for. Now that has been my position from
the beginning and continues to be to this day.
However, the Liberal Leader puts on record that his party
has had a position for many years. Now I
admit, Madam Deputy Speaker, that being new to this Chamber, and some months
ago even newer, I did not know if the Liberal Party had a position on this
issue so I did some homework. I went
back and I looked at Hansard. I went
right back to 1989, as a matter of fact.
In 1989 and '90 and '91, while I was working with the people in my
community and we were trying to learn about the proposal and study it and have
an informed point of view in '89, '90, '91, '92, nobody from the Liberal Party
spoke. Not a word in this Chamber.
Now, if I am wrong, I invite members of the Liberal Party
to put on the record evidence of information that they spoke in this Chamber on
the issue, but they did not speak, to my knowledge, in this Chamber.
More than that, they did not speak in the Winnipeg Free
Press. They did not speak in the
Winnipeg Sun. They did not speak in the
Portage Daily Graphic. They made no
reference whatsoever of their position on this issue‑‑none, zero,
not a word. So to tell me and to tell
the people of my constituency in this province that this was a long‑standing
position of the Liberal Party is nothing but garbage‑‑garbage,
total misinformation.
Now, furthermore, the now‑Liberal Leader (Mr.
Edwards), who was contesting for the leadership at that time with the member
for Inkster (Mr. Lamoureux), and I guess we should not be surprised at the
willingness to sacrifice principle when we saw the process that went through
that party in changing their process to circumvent who should have been the
duly elected leader, but a sacrifice of principle is something all too common
among members of that party, and I have seen it firsthand.
The Liberal Leader, the member for St. James, has said that
his party has a long‑standing position on the issue. Well, maybe long‑standing means two
weeks in the Liberal Party. I do not
doubt it. I do not doubt it when I see
the way their positions change to suit their circumstances. I do not doubt it a bit.
Now I do not mind, because it was humourous, frankly, when
people in Portage la Prairie read that comment, because they knew the
involvement that I have had and they knew the degree of involvement that the
Liberal Leader had had. It was
humourous. But what is not humourous is
when someone attacks a process such as the Liberal Leader did and does not
substitute any alternative, does not put forward any other mechanism because,
without the process, we would have chaos.
There has to be a process, and a process with meaningful participation
has the best likelihood of achieving some positive outcomes for this
province. So I support the process, as
do the members of this government and this House on this side.
However, the Liberal Party does not. They do not respect the process, and if I had
to choose one word to describe the Liberal Leader's involvement and the
involvement of his party in this whole debate, it would be disrespectful,
disrespectful to the people who put the proposal forward from the Pembina
Valley, disrespectful of the people of my community and the whole region who
expressed concerns and used the process‑‑disrespectful.
I would like to refer now to comments made by the Liberal
Leader (Mr. Edwards) in the Daily Graphic of June 18, 1993, where he said, and
I quote: Politically, the dye is
cast. As far as the ongoing hearings are
concerned, it is a done deal.
But the dye was not cast and of course the truth is not
what the Liberal Leader tried to depict here.
The truth is not that the dye is cast.
The truth is not that there was no reason for people to participate in
the process. The truth is not that
people should have avoided going to the hearings. When people are trying to address a concern
such as this one, it is an emotional issue, as is any debate around resources,
but you need people to come forward with facts, not hyperventilate for
political self‑gratification, but come forward with facts.
Now, the people who were concerned about this tried to
recruit and get other people involved.
How does it serve the process to tell people the process is useless? How does it help? It does not help. The Liberal Leader should be ashamed of
himself, because he showed disrespect for everyone around the whole issue,
total disrespect.
Now even people who understand the mentality of the man
might have accepted that that was just the nature of his character, but when
the Liberal leader goes further and rises in this House and accuses the
chairman of the CEC of bias and questions his capability and his ability to
carry on the hearings, I find that just a step too far.
Anyone who attended those hearings would express support
and endorse the gentlemanly character and the conduct of the chairman of the
CEC, anyone who attended.
The Liberal leader did not attend and did not express a
view. He simply attacked the chairman
who was in no position to defend himself, a gentleman who in 35 years of
service to this province, not three weeks of trying to be the leader of a
fledgling party, but 35 years served this province very well. I find that distasteful, extremely distasteful. I was deeply offended, as were members of
this side of the House, deeply offended by the conduct of the member for St.
James (Mr. Edwards).
You know, if you are going to see a process such as the
Clean Environment Commission work, you are going to have to encourage
involvement, not discourage it. You are
going to have to encourage people to bring forward ideas and suggestions and be
open and listen to them, not try to discredit the process. It is very unfortunate that the member for
St. James chose to take that approach in his comments and in his conduct around
this whole issue.
The government of this province, on the other hand, has
been very supportive of the process, has testified to its willingness to listen
to the recommendations, has encouraged people to participate and has followed
through. I must congratulate the past
Minister of Natural Resources and the current Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Driedger) for their willingness to use innovative tactics in addressing
the issue of water allocation in this province, such innovative approaches as
the establishment of an Assiniboine River Advisory Board which has membership
from across this province on it. Those
are the types of innovative approaches to resource management that will result
in the best interests of all Manitobans being looked at, not just some.
It is unfortunate, Madam Deputy Speaker, that these
antirural attitudes exist, but it is understandable, I guess, given the total
lack of rural representation on the part of that party, and it should and must
continue to be that way as long as the attitudes depicted by the member for St.
James exist. As long as they exist, that
type of representation will exist in this province.
An Honourable Member: There shall be no harvest for the Liberal
Party in the verdant, fertile fields of rural Manitoba.
Mr. Pallister: No.
Unfortunately, all too often members of the Liberal Party seem to
communicate the mistaken belief that it does not matter where vegetables come
from because we get ours at the supermarket anyway.
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member's time has expired.
* (1740)
Ms. Norma McCormick
(Osborne): Madam Deputy Chair, I am pleased to rise and
speak on the resolution put forward by the member for Radisson (Ms.
Cerilli). I want to begin by saying that
I believe that the general thrust of this resolution is a good one, that
Manitoba at this point in time appears to lack a comprehensive water allocation
policy.
The minister, in his remarks, has spoken about the document
entitled Applying Manitoba's Water Policy and has referred to the initiative as
the water bible. Given that we need to
acid test this document, as I speak on the resolution I will be raising some
issues that I appreciate the minister cannot respond to in this forum but
perhaps we can get into the debate.
Okay, so let us liken this document then perhaps to the
1991 irrigation strategy, which was produced in draft, and some of the concerns
that were raised by people at the time.
One of the things that becomes apparent is that any policy
in absence of either the will or the ability to enforce it is bound to fall
short, and in fact policies are just that‑‑policies‑‑and
not things for which people can necessarily be held accountable.
What I would like to do is to ask some questions in my
remarks or address some questions to the adequacy of this policy and then
determine if in fact the concerns that have been raised will cover off the
document as a statement of water allocation policy.
First of all, the question has to be asked whether there is
a need to in any way modify the legal instrument, which is The Water Rights
Act, to guarantee both the protection of ground water and rivers.
We also need to address the question of domestic use, in
fact what is meant by "domestic use"?
How can these issues be addressed with respect to, for example, the big
agricultural hog operations, which I anticipate would make a fairly significant
demand on water resources? Would that in
fact be considered a domestic use?
Similarly, there are some issues with respect to ensuring
the protection and supply of domestic water and water for municipal needs. I noted with interest in the discussion that
preceded there was a statement that in fact the Clean Environment Commission is
comfortable with the present status quo in Manitoba, and I would really
challenge that. During the process of
the application by the Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative, it became
apparent during the course of the Clean Environment Commission hearings that
the commission considered the application by the Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative
to be inadequate because it became evident in the process that additional
research needed to be done on the Assiniboine River before questions of further
allocation could be addressed. In fact,
this caused the Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative to withdraw its
application. So the question has to be
asked as to whether what is in this document would satisfy the Clean
Environment Commission's concerns.
I think it became apparent as well through that process
that the Pembina Valley Water Co‑operative sees themselves as being
responsible stewards, and that they were not interested in drawing water that
would in fact impact on their upstream neighbours, and that they were trying to
act in a responsible way. What they
lacked was the support of the framework of a provincial water policy.
Many of us have had the opportunity to meet with the
Citizens for the Protection of Water in Manitoba, and I know that the ministers
of Natural Resources, of Environment and other ministers have had the benefit
of the presentations by some of these people.
I am sure it is to be expected that the concerns that these people have
been raising will be addressed in the water policy strategy.
Of course, one question that has been plaguing this group
of citizens was that the monitoring and enforcing of the licences, which are granted
under The Water Rights Act, particularly as they relate to irrigation, is at
this point in time somewhat sporadic. We
have heard stories about small licence applications being denied, with large
irrigators being permitted to be granted their applications and then not held
accountable for the amount of water that is drawn.
The other problem of course is the issuing of long
licences, of whether or not the issuing of a 20‑year licence, for
example, can take into account the possibility that we could have a drought or
we could have a loss of water supply, we could have a loss of water due to
pollution or to other unforeseen circumstances of climatic change. The member opposite says that unless you have
the guarantee, you cannot grow potatoes, but there may be times in which the
decision has to be made in a year not to grow potatoes because people need to
protect the water for other purposes.
So I guess what we need to do is we need to test the water
policy. I will look forward to reviewing
it, and perhaps in the Estimates process, we will have a greater opportunity to
discuss it. But what I would be looking
for is, for example, is there a need for changes in The Water Rights Act to
ensure that the principles that are enshrined in that policy are in fact
honoured by all concerned, or do we need to beef up The Water Rights Act and
its regulations to ensure the protection of water for both domestic and
municipal needs.
The question has to be raised too is, what is the forum for
citizen input? You know, do citizens
have a right to be informed of decisions that are being made with respect to
water projects, and what is the mechanism that citizens can have their
say? Another question, of course, is the
role of the department itself, the Water Resources branch, the water services
department, the PFRA and other organizations who are going to be asked these questions
by Manitoba citizens and who need to feel that they are operating within a
clear framework of government policy.
The question also has to be asked as to whether the water
policy mitigates against the potential for overdevelopment of this
resource. Water is the thing that we all
take for granted when there is lots of it and fight over it when there is
not. So what we need to do is determine
whether there is a need for establishing minimum base levels for reservoirs or
aquifers or for lakes and streams with respect to flow levels. Should we perhaps be doing some kind of a
base‑line assessment of our water resources and determining the levels
below which we are not prepared to let our ground water and our surface water
reservoirs go?
The question has to be asked too, whose responsibility is
it if in fact we lose a water resource due to pollution? Again, this is the concern of many of the
people in the Interlake who are concerned about the development of the hog
operations. If there is a potential for
contamination of a water resource, is it clear in the policy that the loss to
Manitobans and the loss to the people who rely on that water will in some way
be compensated?
With respect to irrigation, we know that Manitoba is‑‑depending
on the year, a considerable amount of Manitoba water goes for irrigation. There have been estimates that 30,000 acres
are currently irrigated in Manitoba, and historically, agricultural irrigation
has relied on the initiation of individual producers. Of course, we have talked a bit about potato
production and how increasingly dependent it is on irrigation to produce a high‑yield
crop, but we need to think about those producers and think about ways in which
we can ensure them too a fair amount of water and how they can participate.
* (1750)
So what we need to do then is we need to look at The Water
Rights Act which deals with the allocation of surface and ground water, and we
need to come up with some kind of strategy which would in fact require a
process of community consultation. [interjection] The member is saying that the
strategy is there. So the question then
is how do we ensure that the strategy as it is laid out there is followed?
For example, does the document address the circumstances
where transfers between watersheds would be acceptable? The other thing is how does it deal with
other than a first‑come, first‑served allocation of water? Is there a way of determining what kind of
priority we set on water allocation? You
know, if in fact it is in the document that these questions have been addressed,
then I will be pleased to laud it, but we need to know whether or in fact some
of these troubling questions have been addressed.
Another concern that we would have is with respect to the
applications which are judged, often in isolation. You know, several people come forward at the
same time asking for water. Is there a
way of adjudicating? That is not the way
it works at all. Okay. What we need then to determine is how some of
these real questions get adjudicated. It
is not sufficient to have a policy unless the policy actually finds life in
terms of the allocation of water.
The other question that I would hope the policy would
address would be the sale or transfer of water rights. Does it allow for the possibility of the sale
or transfer of water rights, and under what circumstances would that sale or
transfer be permitted?
Another question would be whether or not there is to be any
limit on the terms for the issuing of water licences, or are they to be granted
into perpetuity? These are the kinds of
questions which people are concerned about.
Does it require the people who hold licences to monitor their use so
that they are staying within their allocation?
Does it provide for an appeal process when people are denied access to
water permits? How do you adjudicate
between a variety of demands and interests in the use of water?
Does it in fact provide for the issue I raised earlier
about ensuring minimum levels in our reservoirs, minimum flow rates in our
rivers and streams, minimum levels in our aquifers? Because if that is addressed in that policy,
then that will be very important. Does
the water policy create incentives for conservation?‑‑because we
are moving into an era where we are now placing a higher and higher demand on
water, and at the same time we have to moderate our demands in some way.
I notice that my time is almost up, and so I will close by
saying that I look forward to reviewing the document and to having a further
opportunity to discuss it in the Estimates process but again, my support for
the resolution is evident. I do think
that we have to be clear, though, that the goal is to encourage the formulation
of a comprehensive water allocation plan for the province of Manitoba.
Thank you.
Hon. Harry Enns
(Minister of Agriculture): Madam Deputy
Speaker, just a few moments left to me, but you know it really is a sad day
that a resolution of this nature appears before us. The honourable Minister of Natural Resources
(Mr. Driedger) has described it in its appropriate terms but particularly I
think for those, and I am assuming that the movers and the speakers from the
opposition benches have been in Manitoba most of their lives. For Manitoba to be so chastised is simply
astounding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, that goes well above and beyond this
government's term or even previous governments' terms. Since the very first major water decision
made in this province by the city forefathers of securing this capital city
with a sustainable, dependable, high quality, pure water system in the building
of the aqueduct‑‑surely that goes into part of the history of water
management in this province and one that can hardly, hardly be criticized. It stands and serves this city well.
Madam Deputy Speaker, surely when it became evident that
the ravages of flood, which are still with us‑‑this capital city
would be a provincial backwater town if we would not have addressed and had the
political will to expend $100 million that it required to build the Winnipeg Floodway,
the Shellmouth Dam, the Portage diversion, which have resolved that issue and
allowed orderly progress to continue.
One wonders‑‑in fact, one does not wonder, one knows that
none of these projects could have been proceeded with in today's environment. Not one of them. That is obvious.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what is also obvious, because this is
really the point that I want to make, our environmentalists, our environmental
terrorists, because that is what you have to call them, they keep shifting the
goal post. They raise the cry, not
because of a genuine concern for the environment, but to milk the politics of
the day out of it.
Five years ago, my colleague the then‑Minister of
Natural Resources, in this Chamber, heard nothing but Rafferty‑Alameda
and the terrible consequences if that project was to be proceeded with. Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, Rafferty‑Alameda
has been built. They are just about
living up to expectations of the designers, filling up with water, which the
proponents said would never occur.
More importantly, they are passing through all the waters
plus what they were obligated to under the design and agreements to the United
States and filling up the Darlingford reservoirs. Consequently, we in Manitoba, which was our
concern, are getting all the water that everybody opposite was giving this
minister at that time a royal rebuke for not standing up for Manitoba's
interests.
But more importantly, where is the Rafferty‑Alameda
question today? It is gone. It is of no concern to anybody. If it was a concern five years ago, surely it
should be a concern today.
Then they shifted their attack. Two years later, you know, it was ducks and
geese and a place called Oak Hammock.
Have we heard about Oak Hammock today?
I mean, Oak Hammock was going to be the death‑‑the birds
would stop flying. The ducks and the
geese would disappear. There would be
hot dog stands and laundromats built in our wildlife management areas. Do you remember that? The Leader of the Opposition knows that. We had a major, major‑‑it was the
issue of the day.
Of course, we have moved on. Now we have moved on to Louisiana‑Pacific. Now the big issue is that well‑loved
popular Manitoba weed, the poplar tree, which regenerates in such gay
profusion. A few years ago, 20 years
ago, we were paying farmers money to bulldoze them down, particularly in the
Interlake area, so that we could get access to some of the land. Anybody who has done any clearing of poplar
knows what tremendous regenerative powers they have.
But again, that is not the issue. It is the tactics. It is the tactics of the environmentalists'
lobby that, quite frankly, do them no service, because this kind of crying wolf
steadily degenerates the credibility and the respect that environmentalists and
the environment deserve and the integrity of the debate that should surround
any government proposal, any nongovernment proposal that has an impact on the
environment. It is this hit‑and‑run
tactic of members opposite, that is what we have now witnessed in the short
five years that we were here.
Even just a year ago, as the member for Portage (Mr.
Pallister) pointed out, the whole question was the potential Assiniboine River
diversion.
First of all, do not trust the process, this was a done deal,
according to the Liberal Leader. Well,
it was not a done deal, was it? Was
it? Reason prevailed, a second look was
taken at the proposal and the proposal was not proceeded with, but does this
government, does the present Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Driedger) get
any marks for it? Not from them.
You see, that is not the purpose. The purpose is to cry wolf, raise the alarm,
get everybody excited, but while they are doing that‑‑
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hour being 6 p.m., I am leaving the Chair
with the understanding that this House will reconvene at 8 p.m. in Committee of
Supply.
When this matter is again before the House, the honourable
Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Enns) will have nine minutes and 16 seconds.