Manitoba Hansard — 1 June 1992 (Sitting 76A, 35th Legislature, 3rd Session)

35-3-76a

Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)

MG-8048 Third Session • Thirty-Fifth Legislature of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba DEBATES and PROCEEDINGS (HANSARD) 39-40 Elizabeth II Published under the authority of The Honourable Denis C. Rocan Speaker VOL. XLI No. 76A ·1 :30 p.m., MONDAY, JUNE 1, 1992 Printed by the Office of the QUHns Printer. Province of Manitoba ISSN 0542-5492

MANITOBA LE GISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Thlrty·Fifth Legislature Members, Constituencies and Political Affi liation NAME ALCOCK, Reg ASHTON, Steve BARRETT, Becky CARSTAIRS, Sharon CERILLI, Marianne CHEEMA, Guizar CHOMIAK, Dave CONNERY, Edward CUMMIN GS, Glen, Hon. DACOUAY, Louise DERKACH, Leonard, Hon. DEWAR, Gregory DOER, Gary DOWNEY, James, Hon. DRI EDGER, Albert, Hon. DUCHARME, Gerry, Hon. EDWARDS, Paul ENNS, Harry, Hon. ERNST, Jim , Hon. EVANS, Ciif EVANS, Leonard S. FILMON, Gary, Hon. FINDLAY, Glen, Hon. FRIESEN, Jean GAUDRY, Neil GILLESHAMMER, Harold, Hon. HARPER, Elijah HELWER, Edward R.

HICKES, George LAMOUREUX, Kevin LATHLIN, Oscar LAURENDEAU, Marcel MALOWAY, Jim MANNESS, Clayton, Hon. MARTINDALE, Doug McALPINE, Gerry McCRAE, James, Hon. MciNTOSH, Linda, Hon. MITCHELSON, Bonnie, Hon. NEUFELD, Harold ORCHARD, Donald, Hon. PENNER, Jack PLOHMAN, John PRAZNIK, Darren, Hon. REID, Daryl REIMER, Jack RENDER, Shirley ROCAN, Denis, Hon. ROSE, Bob SANTOS, Conrad STEFANSON, Eric, Hon. STORIE, Jerry SVEINSON, Ben VODREY, Rosemary, Hon. WASYL YCIA-LEIS, Judy WOWCHUK, Rosann CONSTITUENCY Osborne Thompson Wellington River Heights Radisson The Maples Kildonan Portage Ia Prairie Ste.

Rose Seine River Roblin-Russell Selkirk Concordia Arthur-Virden Steinbach Riel St. James Lakeside Charleswood Interlake Brandon East Tuxedo Springfield Wolseley St. Boniface Minnedosa Rupertsland Gimli Point Douglas Inkster · The Pas St. Norbert Elmwood Morris Burrows Sturgeon Creek Brandon West Assiniboia River East Rossmere Pembina Emerson Dauphin Lac du Bonnet Transcona Niakwa St. Vital Gladstone Turtle Mountain Broadway Kirkfield Park Flin Flon La Verendrye Fort Garry St.

Johns Swan River PARTY Liberal NDP NDP Liberal NDP Liberal NDP PC PC PC PC NDP NDP PC PC PC Liberal PC PC NDP NDP PC PC NDP Liberal PC NDP PC NDP Liberal NDP PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC PC PC NDP PC NDP PC PC NDP NDP

3978 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MANITOBA Monday,June 1, 19 92 The House met at 1 :30 p.m. PRAYERS ROUTINE PROCE EDINGS PRESEN TING PETITIONS Mr. EliJah Harper (Rupertsland): I beg to present the petition of Leonard Fiddler, Zack Harper, Marilyn Wood and others requesting the government show its strong commitment to aboriginal self-government by considering reversing its position on the AJI by supporting the recomm en da tion within its jurisdiction and implementing a se parate and parallel justice system. Mr. Leonar d Evans (Brandon East ) : Mr.

Speaker, I beg to present the petition of Carolyn Gregory, Sandy Roy, Dorothy Jones and others requesting the government consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital to avoid layoffs and cutbacks to vital services. READING AND RECE IVING PETITIONS Mr. Speaker: I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Brandon East (Mr. Leonard Evans), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba, humbly sheweth that: The Brandon General Hospital is the major health care institution for southwestern Manitoba; and The citizens of Brandon and southwestern Manitoba are deeply concerned and disturbed about the downsizing of the hospital and view it as a threat to the quality of health care in the region; and The Manitoba government has chosen not to review the current budget to ensure that cutbacks to vital services do not occur; and The administration of the hospital has been forced to take drastic measures including the elimination of the Palliative Care Unit and gynecological wards, along with the layoff of over 30 staff , mainly licensed practical nurses, to cope with a funding shortfall of over $1 .3 million; and WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba consider reviewing the funding of the Brandon General Hospital. *** I have reviewed the petition of the honourable member for Wellington (Ms.

Barrett), and it complies with the privileges and practices of the House and complies with the rules. Is it the will of the House to have the petition read?

The petition of the undersigned citizens of the province of Manitoba humbly sheweth: THAT child abuse is a crime abhorred by all good citizens of our society, but nonetheless it exists in today's world; and It is the responsibility of the government to recognize and deal with this most vicious of crimes; and Programs like the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign raise public awareness and necessary funds to deal with crime; and The decision to terminate the Fight Back Against Child Abuse campaign will hamper the efforts of all good citizens to help abused children.

WHEREFORE your petitioners humbly pray that the Legislature of the Province of Manitoba may be pleased to request that the government of Manitoba show a strong commitment to deal with Child Abuse by considering restoring the Rght Back Against Child Abuse campaign. MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS AND TABLING OF RE PORTS Hon. James McCrae (Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have a brief statement for the House.

In line with the undertaking I gave the House at the start of the current round of constitutional discussions, I would like to provide a brief status report on the multilateral meetings which took place in Montreal and Toronto over the last two weeks.

3979 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 As the news media have already reported, the ministers and aboriginal leaders have agreed to extend the process past the original target date of May 31 . We will be meeting again, probably in Ottawa, on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, June 9 and 1 0. When we concluded our Toronto sessions late Saturday af ternoon, we all agreed that our discussions should continue, but that we all needed a little time away from the table to reflect on the key issues which are still outstanding.

A great deal of work has been done; but several vital issues remain unresolved. Senate reform is at the top of the list. Support for the Triple-E model is holding firm, but the larger provinces are continuing to resist the principle of equality. We have a tough fight ahead of us, Mr.

Speaker, but the more I hear the arguments for the alternatives, the more I am convinced we are right to stand firm for genuine Senate ref orm; however, Senate reform is not the only critical issue still outstanding. * (1 335) Another is the strengthened equalization system, and protection for Established Programs Financing for medicare and higher education. The federal government is prepared to concede on a few minor cosmetic changes, but so far it has not offered any meaningful constitutional security for the programs which are so fundamental to holding our country together.

We have made it clear, as our task force did, that these kinds of safeguards must be part of the Canada round. There are other major outstanding issues. Federal proposals for a common market clause were just put back on the table on Friday morning and are only now being analyzed. The amending fo rmula is also far from resolved. As we have emphasized over and over again, no final decisions have been made on any of the elements in an overall package. How much further we can get next week remains to be seen, but there is a clear willingness by all the participants to keep trying. There are flaws in the process.

At times, it has become all too reminiscent of the Meech Lake round two years ago. The time pressures have been intense, but this is the only process we have at the moment, and it is working well enough to be kept going while we try to narrow the options further. Like most Canadians, we want to get these discussions completed and behind us, but we also want to put together a package that Is fair and bal anced , that meets Ca nada's needs and Manitoba's needs. That will take more time, but we do not really have a choice. The job has to be done, and we all want to do it as carefu lly and as well as we can.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gary Doer {Leader of the Opposition} : I thank the minister for his statement. I know that the minister is going through a very, very challenging time on behalf of the government and the people of Manitoba in representing the all-party task fo rce, and we wish him well to achieve the objectives stated in the all-party task force report. The number of days he is putting in and the probable amount of time and days he will put in in the future, I know, are not easy ones. We wish him well, and we wish the government well in achieving the objectives of the Manitoba task force report. Mr.

Speaker, I noted that last week the minister was making some statements about not seeing dr afts of va rious materials and being very concerned. At one point, I think, Manitoba was very optimistic about the process. I remember the Premier (Mr. Filmon) stating that Joe Clark would be a breath of fresh air in the constitutional process compared to Senator Lowell Murray, and it appears the minister is meeting with some ofthe same tactics that unfortunately confronted Canadians and Manitobans some time ago. Mr.

Speaker, in terms of the all-party task fo rce, we are very interested in what we consider to be the No. 1 priority of Manitobans, and that is the need to maintain and enhance a strong federal government. The minister noted the equalization and EPF priorities of Manitoba, and we support him on strengthening those provisions in our Canadian Constitution. * (1 340) We also note that the issue of division of powers has been reported as having devolution of powers to the provinces. We recall that when the Dobbie-Beaudoin report was made public a couple of weeks ago, Mr.

Speaker, ten weeks ago, the Premier stated that division of powers would reduce the federal government to "a post office". We also share those concerns as the Premier stated bef ore, and we are very interested in the division of powers proposals in the rolling draft as we understand it.

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 3980 In terms of aboriginal people, Mr. Speaker, they are making tremendous progress. We hope it will fina!ly achieve the kind of constitutional reform that aboriginal people have been seeking and, I think, entitled to since the treaties were first agreed to by our forefathers and foremothers. We hope that those talks succeed in this round.

Obviously, in terms of the last process, where aboriginal people were not involved, and this process, where they are at the table, we can see a quantum difference, I think, in understanding the views and articulating the vision for aboriginal people, again a very high priority of the Manitoba task force report. In terms of institutional reform, Mr. Speaker, we await the final proposal that will arrive from the ministers. We have heard a lot of coverage on this issue.

I think Canadians do want legitimate reform in terms of our major institutions, but I would caution the government that we are looking at a very costly kind of change in institution, and it must have the real issues before it, not just symbolic issues. We will await to see the results of those deliberations. In terms of the Canada Clause, I note that Quebec is mentioned as the first peoples of Canada, the characteristics of Canada.

I would refer the minister back to the Manitoba task force when we talk about Canada and its characteristics on the basis of settlement in our country-the original people, the aboriginal people, Quebec and English Canada and the multicultural mosaic. We have not seen the legal text of the Canada Clause, Mr. Speaker, but the minister will know, we know and the Minister of Cultural Affairs will know that the multicultural community of Manitoba was very opposed to the Dobbie-Beaudoin report on the way they relegated multicultural people of Canada.

I know the minister has taken that issue forward to the table, and he certainly has the support of our members in terms of resolving that issue. Finally, Mr. Speaker, in terms of the process, I think that the ministers were wise to take a brief pause in their deliberations. I would also say, at a meeting last week, I stated to the Premier (Mr. Filmon)-an informal meeting we had on the Constitution-! suggested, if there is any proposal that arises from this process, that we, too, take a pause with the people of Manitoba, that we not have a very quick process in this province.

I think the kind of time and effort the people are spending on the proposal means we have to take a lot of time and not have a fast, quick process in this Legislature on something so fundamental as our Constitution. So I would urge the government to use the same principles of pausing with this Legislature that they are using now with the constitutional talks, if a proposal comes back, that we take the time and we do it right, or we do not do it at all. Thank you very, very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Paul Edwards (St. James) : Mr.

Speaker, I, too, on behalf of our party, want to wish this minister and this government well in this very important round of negotiations. We all know that the Minister of Justice (Mr. McCrae) has spent certainly long hours and very trying da ys, trying weeks, and there are many ahead. We appreciate the efforts that are being made by him personally in that regard, being away so often and so long. We do, of course, look forward to a successful resolution that meets the tenets of the task force report in this province and that the people of Manitoba can accept. Mr.

Speaker, briefly, of course, we cannot comment on any of the substantive discussions which the minister is having, because we do not have any of the substantive proposals before us. That is one of the problems, as I see it, and gives this the reminiscences of Meech Lake again, that we just do not have the ability, as the ministers discuss in Ottawa, to look at what they are saying and reflect on it as Canadians who are going to have to live with the Constitution at the end of the day. Mr.

Speaker, I am very concerned, our party is very concerned as well, that the federal government is again looking for a deal at any cost. I note that the minister's comments indicate tha t he is concerned, the government is very concerned to maintain a strong federal government. That was a consistent, overwhelming concern voiced by Manitobans. We all know that. I simply reiterate to the minister our support for that position, which is that Canada, the nation, must remain strong above all else. * (1 345) Mr.

Speaker, as well, the concern we have is that the trappings of Meech are occurring again, this time around the country. I do think that the break at this point is appropriate, and I think that the ministers have been wise in taking this breathing space, but I note, with some concern, the statement from Mr. Clark today which is to the effect: I do not think

3981 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 anybody in their right mind would want to open this up again. That is his statement today on what has occurred so far. That is the same attitude, that is the same type of pressure that was put on in Meech Lake. If that is coming from the man from the federal government who is co-ordinating this all, that gives us cause for concern that he is looking to come up with a deal and then say, take it or leave it, and you cannot change a word. Mr. Speaker, that will not do for Manitobans. I am very concerned about that expression Qf attitude on his part.

He speaks for the federal government in this matter. The Constitution, as the minister has said himself, and as I think we have agreement in this House, is for Canadians, and in our role, we must provide for Manitobans to have the fullest opportunity to review whatever is being put to them. Mr. Speaker, we simply reiterate the position that my friend put forward , the Lea der of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Doer), that an absolutely essential tenet of any bargain, of any wording which comes out of the meetings that the minister is at, is that Manitobans get a full opportunity to look at it and to discuss it.

We will not be put in the same position that we were last time, and I do not think it is good enough, not only for Manitobans, but for anybody in this country. As well, we look forward to the recognition by all parties at the table that in fact Canadians deserve an opportunity to speak on the final arrangement and an opportunity to have it in front of them and to make their voice heard in a refe rendum. Mr. Speaker, we again ask the minister to do as he has been doing, which is regularly report to us. We appreciate that. We want some details, and we want them soon. Thank you. Hon.

Leonard Derkach (Minis ter of Rural Development): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the 19 90-91 Annual Report for the Conservation Districts of Manitoba. INTRODUCTION OF BILLS Bill 95-The Tax Appeals Commission Act Hon. Clayton Manness (Minister of Finance): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Ju stice (Mr. McCrae), that Bill 95, The Tax Appeals Commission Act (Loi sur Ia Commission d'appel des impc)ts et des taxes), be introduced and that the same be now 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 that message. Motion agreed to. Introduction of Guests · Mr. Speaker: Prior to Oral Questions, may I direct the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where we have with us this afte rnoon His Excellency Dr. Kurt Herndl, the Ambassador of Austria to Canada, Mrs. Herndl, and Mr. John Klassen, the Honourary Consul of Austria. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afternoon.

Also this aft ernoon, I would like to draw the attention of honourable members to the Speaker's Gallery, where I am pleased to announce that in the future, the RCMP will be present in this building and on the Legislative grounds in their traditional red serge uniform. This duty will be performed on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. during the months of June, July and August. This new activity is intended to celebrate Canada's 12 5t h ann iversary.

The presence of representatives of the force as a symbol of Canada will be a most welcome addition to the stately building and grounds we are all so proud of. Please welcome Constable Kevin Shott of RCMP "D" Division headquarters. Also with us this aft ernoon, we have from the H.S. Paul School, thirty-eight Grade 9 students. They are under the direction of Mr. Frank Bojarski. This school is located in the constituency of the honou rable memb er for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay). Also this aft ernoon, we have fort y-nine students from the Lakehead Separate School Board Band in Thunder Bay, Ontario.

They are under the direction of Cliff Ojala. On behalf of all honourable members, I would like to welcome you here this afterno on. * (1 350)

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 3982 ORAL QUESTION PER IOD Constitutional Proposal Public Hear ings Mr. Gary Doer (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise a question to the Deputy Premier dealing with the timing that I think is so important for the people of Manitoba. Mr.

Speaker, we on this side, and I think all members have expressed concern-the minister today in his statement, the Premier in his Speech from the Throne in 19 90, members have always stated on all sides of the House that the roll-the-dice, last-minute, take-it-or-leave-it kind of process in Constitution making for Canada was inconsistent with the rules, the traditions and the ability to consult that is part of the Manitoba tradition. In 1 987, Mr.

Speaker, when there was a proposed constitutional amendment, even though we sat in this House six weeks after the proposal was made, the Legislature did not deal with the issue because it was time for Manitobans to look at it prior to coming back to the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, we now have a situation where there are all kinds of discussion based on timing, based on the Quebec referendum, but I think it is important in this House that we deal on Manitoba timing for Manitoba people.

I would like to ask the Deputy Premier: Is it part of the contingency plan of the government that a proposal that will be made, if it is made, will not be dealt with by this Legislature until there is enough time so the people of Manitoba can digest its contents, digest its substance, and know what it means for their future and their children's future for the people of this province? Hon. James Downey (Deputy Premier): As I heard the Attorney General report, Mr. Speaker, progress is being made, and I would think the Leader of the Opposition's question is somewhat hypothetical at this particular time.

However, unlike a government which he sat as part of-whether it was a major change to the Constitution being proposed, which was done behind closed doors in 19 83 by a government that really did not care what the people of Manitoba thought, dealing with the language issue, an agreement that was brought out of a back room by him and his former Attorney-General-there is in fact a process in place which will be followed so that the people of Manitoba have full opportunity to be involved in the process through a provincial hearing process. Mr.

Doer: I guess when the Deputy Premier is in this House, we should not expect any answers to questions, we should not expect any substance to his statements, Mr. Speaker. I asked the Deputy Premier a very serious question.

In 19 87, the Premier of the province who had brought back a proposed constitutional amendment did not continue to bring that proposed constitutional amendment in this House in June and July of 19 87 so the people of the province could have a chance to understand it, to study it, so there would be enough time for the public to deal with the constitutional proposal, not on a short-term, quick basis.

I would ask the Deputy Premier today: Will he give us a commitment that this House too will have a pause on any constitutional proposal; a pause that will allow the people of Manitoba to look at the proposal, to understand its ramifications, and not bring it in this session so that we have a quick and a too-expedient kind of process in this province? A very simple question. Mr. Downey: Mr.

Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition and the people of Manitoba that we have a process in place to make sure there are full opportunities for this House and for the people of Manitoba to bring forward their concerns and to make comment before final presentation and passage, or proposed passage, for this Legislature. Mr. Doer: Again, I would ask the Deputy Premier for a guarantee. Manitobans traditionally have ho lidays where they enjoy the treme ndous amenities of our province in the summer months of July and August.

Will the Deputy Premier give us a guarantee that Manitobans will not be forced to look at their constitutional future in July and August of the 19 92 year, that we will wait at least until September so that the people of Manitoba will have time to look at the proposal, understand the proposal, and that we can have an intelligent debate in this House on the basis of their information, not a quick process? Mr. Downey: Mr.

Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is fully aware, the proposal that is being presented on behalf of the government and the people of Manitoba was developed through a joint task force of the Legislative Assembly. That is

3983 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 being presented on behalf of the Province of Manitoba. There are rules which have been established in the handling of constitutional matters, which we have established for this House and for the people of Manitoba. There are all intentions to follow that process and the rules that ha ve been established-no intention of changing. We will follow the rules that have been established on behalf of the people of Manitoba and this Legislative Assembly. * (1 355) Clearwater Lake, Manitoba Government Nursery Staffing Mr.

Oscar Lathlln (The Pas): My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. In the very first Question Period of this session, last December, I asked the Minister of Natural Resources why the Clearwater Lake nursery was being cut back. The answers we got back then were no more accurate than the answers I got in March from the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) when he rose to m ake what he called additional information. Mr.

Speaker, can the Min ister of Natural Resources tell the House how many people are working at the nursery today, and how does this number relate to the commitments made by the Minister of Northern Affairs in March? Hon. Harry Enns (Minis ter of Nat ur al Resources): Mr. Speaker, I would have to take the details of that question as notice and provide the honourable member with that information certainly as early as tomorrow. The honourable member is aware that due to some of the diffic ulties in the forestry industry generally, Repap has scaled down its requirements for seedlings.

As was announced and as I indicated to the honourable member, we are essentially running only a summer program at the Clearwater nursery this summer, but I will provide the actual numbers of employees currently at work for him tomorrow. Mr. Lathlln: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Northern Affairs in this House on March 4 said: Summer production will be carried out at The Pas nursery this summer. Since I know how many people are working today-fo ur out of 40 people are working out there today; just four out of the 12 normal seedling crops are occurring right now. How can this minister, Mr.

Speaker, claim that summer production is carrying on as usual this year when only four out of 40 people are working? Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I would just want the offi cial opposition to get their act together. I mean, on the one hand, they do not want any trees cut down at all. They do not really care about 1 0,000 people who earn their livelihood from them. So get your act together. Talk to your other colleagues. The forestry industry is in deep trouble, not just in Manitoba, but across Canada. Rve or six mills have closed in the last six months.

We are doing our best to keep our operations alive in Manitoba with precious little help from all the members opposite. Mr. Lathlln: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Natural Resources again: Why is this government cutting fundi ng and support to that nursery in The Pas when today northern Manitoba needs jobs in the worst way and forestry is so vital to the northern economy? Why is he cutting jobs and support to the nursery? Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that my departmental Estimates will be before the members soon.

I certainly invite the honourable members to make all those inquiries when the Estimates of my department are placed before them, but the simple and short answer is that we have scaled down our forestry operation in the province. If we are not cutting down trees at the same level, then we are not replanting them at the same level. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that out. Economic Growth Research and Development Investment Mr. Reg Alcock (Osborne): Mr.

Speaker, last week I asked the Minister of Industry and Trade why Manitoba had been ig nored in the recen t announcement of a national initiative in telecommunications research. I asked him that question because research and development is critical to the economic growth in this province. This minister has made much about their strategy for growth in research and development, but I would like to ask him why the investment in research and development in this province has declined every year since this government took offi ce. Hon. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): Mr.

Speaker, I look forward to

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 3984 debating this issue in Estimates, which I imagine are coming up shortly, because this honourable m&mber-all he needs to do is go through the '92-93 Estimates and look at the significant increase in terms of research and development, just look at the funding that is being provided to the Economic and Innovation Technology Council of Manitoba and their function in terms of promoting innovation and research and development in this province, and he will clearly see that there has been a significant increase in research and development expenditures allocated for the upcoming year.

I look forward to debating the details in Estimates with the honourable member, Mr. Speaker. * (1 400) Mr. Alcock: I am fully aware of the money that is being spent promoting research and development in this province and promoting the initiative. What I am talking about is how much money is being actually invested in research and development. My question to this minister is: Why is that investment in research and development in this province declining? Mr. Stefanson: First of all, without accepting, as usual, any of the

preamble of the honourable member for Osborne, I have already pointed out to him that there are dollars allocated in terms of enhanced research and development opportunities, not being driven by government but funding being made available to the private sector to enhance research and development opportunities in our province and to lead to additional innovation. I certainly look forward to going through all of the details in Estimates, because this government has increased expenditures in research and development in 1 992-93 to a very significant extent.

I will gladly go over all of the details with the honourable member if we ever get to Estimates. Mr. Alcock: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would indulge me and answer one question now. Total investment in research and development in this province is lower today than it was in 19 88, proportionally and in real dollars. I would like to ask the minister: Why? Mr. Stefanson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I look forward to the honourable member sharing his source of information, which so often seems to be in contradiction and inaccurate with the data being provided by re puta ble economic indicato r organizations.

I have already pointed out to the honourable member, he need look no further than the 19 92-1 993 Estimates. Point of Order Mr. Alcock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister talks about the inaccuracy of my sources; he has yet to disprove a single fact. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member does not have a point of order. It is clearly a dispute over the facts. Tourism Industry Overnight VIsitor Statistics Mr.

Jerry Storie (FIIn Flon): It is my privilege to give the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism a chance to explain yet another reason why the province of Manitoba is following the pack. Mr. Speaker, the latest statistics from Statistics Canada show that overnight trips from the United States into Canada, March over March, '92 over '91 , there has been a 23.5 percent decrease in overnight visitors to Canada.

Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism explain why, once again, Manitoba is second last, ahead of only Newfoundland in terms of overnight visitors to Canada, in terms of an industry that is a billion-dollar industry to the province of Manitoba? Hen. Eric Stefanson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism): I responded to a similar question from the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Doer) not long ago.

It is interesting, coming from a party that likes to look backwards most of the time, that from their term of government from 19 82-88 , statistics indicate that the decline in terms of American visitors into Manitoba was some 25 percent during that time period. I also would suggest that when they are doing their research, they look back during their term when their numbers were very poor, to say the least, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated the things that we are doing in 19 92, the kind of campaign focusing in the United States, the additional dollars being spent.

I am sure the members have seen some parts of the advertising campaign that is taking place to encourage our American visitors to come to Manitoba. We have created an express lane at the border, but as seems to happen, far too often the members of the opposition attempt to focus on the negative.

3985 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 I am sure the honourable member would be more than interested that only two provinces had a reduction in the first quarter in terms of what is called cross-border shopping, Canadians going down to the United States, and Manitoba was one of them. That is very good news, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Storie: That is the most bizarre response I have ever heard. Mr. Speaker, every time things get worse in the province of Manitoba, this minister stands up and says, yes, but it is part of a plan. It is part of a plan. It is getting worse. Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Government Initiatives Mr. Jerry Storie {FIIn Flon): Mr. Speaker, the minister's answer is no comfort to the hundreds of Manitoba businesses that rely on the tourist dollars to make a living. My question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism is: Whatplan doesthe minister have in place to support the businesses that are going to go out of business this year, going to go bankrupt this year because this government's tourism plan is failing? Hon.

Eric Stefanson {Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism) : If the honourable member wants to do justice to looking at tourism stats-and I pointed out to them before-less than 1 0 percent of our tourism industry comes from American visitors to Canada. Almost 90 percent are Canadians; 87 percent are Canadians, and out of that, about 65 percent are Manitobans. We are faring among the best of the provinces in Canada in terms of retaining that base. If you look at occupancy rates, they are growing in Manitoba. If you look at the dollars being spent, they are growing in Manitoba. Why, Mr. Speaker?

Because we are retaining our 90 percent base. Sure, we are not happy-we have indicated before-with what has happened in the past in terms of our American visitors. We have a campaign that is addressing that. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition befo re, the first quarter of the year is our lowest visitations. Wait until the year is done in terms of seeing what the visitations are into Manitoba in terms of our U.S. visitors, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Storle: Mr. Speaker, the minister again misses the point.

In northern Manitoba, some 80 percent of the visitors to our lodges and ou r outfitters are American, 80 percent. There was a 40 percent decline in business last year. This year is the critical turning point for many of them. Can the Minister of Industry, Trade and Tourism tell this House and the lodges and outfitters in the province of Manitoba, particularly in the North, what he is going to do, this government is going to do, to make sure that American tourists return to northern Manitoba so that they can continue with their livelihood and continue to employ people in northern Manitoba? Mr. Stefanson: Mr.

Speaker, as usual, I would be very interested in what the honourable member's source is, because recently I met with the president of the Lodge & Outfitters Association. He indicates to me that their association is very pleased with the campaign that we are a part of in promoting Manitoba down in the United States. We were with them recently at a sports show down in the United States, and as I indicated, they are extremely pleased with what we are doing. I also challenge his statistics in terms of what he indicates the impact is in terms of their industry. Mr.

Speaker, as happens far too ofte n, the honourable member does not get out and talk to Manitobans, talk to people in the industry. We do that, and they are pleased with the job we are doing in that area. Department of Agriculture Privatization of Laboratories Mr. John Plohman {Dauphin) : Mr. Speaker, last year, the Minister of Agriculture followed his true Tory inclination and privatized four services in the Department of Agriculture: the veterinarian drug distribution centre; the Semen Distribution Centre; the soils testing lab; and the feed testing lab.

After a lot of questioning, we established that it would not save any dollars for the taxpayers, but he said it was to create economic activity and jobs in the province of Manitoba. We said at that time that there would be no jobs created, that costs would increase for farmers and services would suffer. I want to ask the Minister of Agriculture, will he now admit that his privatization inclination and initiative last year simply increased costs to farmers and created not one new job in the province of Manitoba? Hon. Glen Findlay {Minister of Agriculture): Mr.

Speaker, I am rather surprised that the member would make those statements in the House today.

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3986 He is really misleading the House, because we have gone through Estimates, and we have discussed these figures. I would like to put the figures on the record for the member again since he did not listen to them in Estimates. In the drug centre, an increase of two jobs under privatization; in terms of the feed lab, there has been a decrease in cost of sample analysis from $26 to about $20, roughly a reduction of that nature. Veterinary Drug Centre Privatization Results Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin) : Mr.

Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture accuses me of not bringing all the facts here. He certainly did not list all the facts for all of the labs. He chose just a few that would fit his argument. Let us look at the whole picture. How can the minister justify the doubling of the markup charged by the Midwest Veterinary Co-operative to 12 percent from 6 percent, a 1 00 percent increase in the markup charged as a result of his privatization? * (1 41 0) Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the vet co-operative is charging 12 percent

whereas the government charges 6 percent. The government was losing money in that process. There is competition that keeps the costs down in the countryside. The veterinary drug commission does monitor prices in the 31 clinics in this province and negotiates what the markup will be each year. That is totally separate from what the member is putting on the record today. The actual charge that the veterinarian charges the farmer in the 31 drug clinics in the province is negotiated by the veterinary drug commission each year. That negotiation has not changed, and the markup there has not changed.

Soli Testing Laboratory Privatization Results Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Mr. Speaker, the 1 00 percent markup is still a fact, and that will be passed onto the farmers. Could the minister explain to this House why Norwest Labs, which has taken over the soil testing, has increased the charge for tests by 30 percent over the previous year when this minister said service and costs would be improved under his system? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the costs of doing soil analysis have gone up.

Norwest Labs offers additional services for that markup, like pickup at bus depots, drying of the samples. They offer more services than we offer in our lab. Norwest does the feed analysis, and they have reduced the costs. Civil Service Commission Term Position Bulletins Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the Civil Service. Opposition has two functions. One is to ensure results, and the other is to ensure that there is a proper process that is in fact being followed. Governments should not operate on the principle that the ends justify the means.

I ask: Can the minister tell us whether it is governmen t policy that permanent and term positions in government departments and Crown corporations should be bulletined and advertised before they are filled? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, the policy has been in place through various administrations over numbers of years. In most cases, those positions are bu ll etined. From time to time, th ere are circumstances in which positions are not bulletined. Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Hiring Process Mr.

Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): The government should have been forewarned from the Minister of Culture, Heritage and Citizenship (Mrs. Mitchelson) that this is one of the things that could be coming. Can the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission (Mr. Praznik) tell the House why two new director positions were created and filled at the Manitoba Lotteries Foundation without being bulletined or advertised at a time when many lottery workers were losing their jobs because of a transfer of jobs out to Stettler, Alberta? Hon.

Bonnie Mitchelson (Minister charged with the administration of The Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Act): Mr. Speaker, the Lotteries Foundation is a Crown agency of the Province of

3987 LEGIS LATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 Manitoba. I think that although we try to explain during committee process to the member for Inkster what does happen, the two positions were not Civil Service positions. They were service contract positions for a year's period of time. He has no understanding of what are Civil Service jobs and what are service contracts. In fact, they were filled through the contract process without Civil Service benefits. Mr. Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, call it a contract and avoid the rules, a new policy of this government.

Manitoba Lotteries Foundation Hiring Process • Investigation Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission. Will he launch an investigation into the process surrounding the hiring of these two directors? Hon. Darren Praznlk (Minister responsible for and charged with the administration of The Civil Service Act): Mr. Speaker, again the member for In kster comes to this House with improper inf ormation, not sure of the process. I would advise him to go do a little bit more homework before he brings an issue to this House.

Endangered Spaces Tall Grass Prairie Site Ms. Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): When I last raised the issue of the tall grass prairie site off Regent and it being designated as part of the Endangered Spaces Program, the Minister of Natural Resources said that it was being considered under the program and that he was hoping there would be some agreement made.

I would like to ask the minister if he is aware that he is running out of time, that this site and the proposed road that is going to be constructed through it is going to be presented before the works and operations committee tomorrow, and if there has been a decision with respect to the Endangered Spaces Program. Hon. Ha rry Enns (Minis ter of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of the jurisdiction within which I have some influence. The land in question, the area in question, is very much under the jurisdiction of the City of Winnipeg.

I have made it publicly known, both through the questioning by the honourable member and through correspondence, that the province would be more than prepared to participate in a program to set aside that small piece of tall grass prairie land, but there needs to be a willingness on the part of the owners of the property and the City of Winnipeg to take us up on that offe r. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, the minister has responsibility for the Endangered Spaces Program. Why has this site not been designated since he has that responsibility?

What is the delay, and what correspondence can he table to show that he is indeed corresponding with the City of Winnipeg? Mr. Enns: Mr. Speaker, I just want to correct the last bit of inform ation. I did not indicate that I was corresponding with the City of Winnipeg. I simply indicated that I would be more than happy, if requested by the City of Winnipeg, to discuss the program with them. Mr. Speaker, that land is not under the jurisdiction of the province. That land is not my land to order what should or should not be done with it.

It is a very fundamental, different style of doing things with respect to my conception of my authority and that of the honourable member's. There is a duly elected government, local government, a duly elected councillor who is responsible for that particular area. If they wish to bring that forward to work with a provincial program that is there for them, then they have to initiate it. Ms. Cerllll: Mr. Speaker, I question where the leadership is of this government in maintaining its commitment to the Endangered Spaces Program. Site Selection Criteria Ms.

Marianne Cerllll (Radisson): I am concerned about the criteria that this government is using to identify sites. Can the minister inform the House of the criteria used to prioritize or identify which sites are going to be designated, and can he table that criteria for us in the House today? Hon. Ha rry Enns (Min ister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I can table or undertake to table the information we have that she requests.

I would, quite fran kly, sooner invite her to examine the department and myself when I have my officials available to fully explain the procedure by which design ation under the Endanger ed Spaces Program is undertaken.

June 1, 19 92 LEGI SLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3988 Employment Standards Act Amendments Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Traditionally, the disabled face high rates of unemployment, systemic discrimination and many barriers to employment, but there is some encouraging news in a survey that was recently conducted by the MLPH on the employment of disabled persons in Manitoba which showed the good experience of many employers when they employ disabled people. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour is currently conducting a review of employment standards.

I would like to ask the Minister of Labour: Will he listen to the concerns expressed by the MLPH and the disabled, and will he now commit to passing amendments to The Employment Standards Act, which will remove any form of discrimination against the disabled in the emplo yment st andards legislation of Manitoba? Hon. Darren Praznlk {Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I certainly can tell the member for Thompson that I am more than pleased to work with all the various groups.

I share the goal, I think, of all members of this Legislative Assembly in ensuring that people have access to employment, and I continue to do that and will continue to work with those organizations. Disabled Employees Rehabilitation/Vocational Services Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Mr. Speaker, will the minister, in addition to reviewing recommendations in terms of employ ment standards, also have responses to the other clear

summary in the report which pointed to inadequate levels of government funding for rehabilitation and vocational services? Hon. Darren Praznlk {Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, training and dollars for training fall within a variety of our departments within government. We certainly know that the province's ability to throw or to provide a great deal of new money to anything is somewhat limited, but I think we are all committed to ensuring that dollars that are available are being used in the most productive way possible.

I know there are a number of areas where improvements obviously can be made, and we are always prepared to look at them. • (1 420) Disabled Employees Employment Standards Mr. Steve Ashton (Thompson): Finally, Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Family Services perhaps then respond to one of the other major conclusions in the report which is based on a survey of both employers in the public and private sectors and deal with the lack of clear, consistent public policy-and these are their words-especially in relation to the needs of persons with developmental disabilities?

Will the government deal with that lack of policy in this very important area? Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): I might just say to the member that I had the pleasure of attending an in ternatio nal conference called Independence '92 recently, and Manitoba was very prominently featured at that conference in the work that is being done with the disabled community. Mr. Henry Enns, who was at that conference, has just been recognized for the tremendous work that he has done, not only nationally and provincially, but internationally.

Having said and established that, I think, it is well known that Manitoba is a leader in many areas to do with the disabled. There is more to be done, and we will continue to work with the disable d community and the people who advocate on their behalf to try and provide the best training and resources that we can for them. Pharmaceutical Costs Impact on Seniors Mr. Conrad Santos {Broadway): Mr. Speaker, since the recent changes in the drug patent laws, the pattern of drug prices has outrageously and dramatically escalated to almost four times the rate of inflation in this country.

In light of this development, I ask the honourable minister responsible for senior citizens what action he is going to take to protect the interests of senior citizens in this country against drug prices. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr. Speaker, first of all, that is a little repeat of a question brought forward by the member earlier, a couple of weeks ago. However, our government will continue to implement our Pharmacare program and to look after our seniors as well as the rest of the residents of Manitoba.

3989 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 Mr. Santos: Mr. Speaker, since action speaks louder than words, can this honourable minister tell us whether he will talk to his colleagues to reconsider their decision in increasing Pharmacare rates at greater than the rate of the cu rrent consumer price index? Mr. Ducharme: Mr. Speaker, true action we speak about in regard to the member across the way, I hope he speaks to his socialist counterparts in Saskatchewan on the recent elimination of their seniors heritage program and their pension program in that particular province.

I talk to my colleagues in this Legislature and to the federal minister continually. 55 Plus Program Delndexlng Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Can I ask the honourable minister whether he will still continue to talk with his colleagues with respect to the decision to deindex the benefits of the 55 Plus program, and that they might consider modifying and reversing such kinds of decisions? Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): Mr.

Speaker, if you will give me a moment, just to maintain that even under difficu lt times, our government here will continue our program without any decrease in this year '92-93, maintaining the funding of the 20,000 seniors in our 55 Plus program , unl ike Sask atchewan counterparts who eliminated their heritage senior program and unlike the members in Ontario who will eliminate 400 senior citizens' households from the sales tax credits reduced and eliminated this year in Ontario. Suche Report Government Response Ms. Becky Barrett (Wellington): Mr.

Speaker, on April 30, the government issued its response to the Suche report. Last Friday, I asked the Minister responsible for Family Services when he would implement one of the immediate recommendations which was that there be established a residential care curriculum committee to develop standards for workers in residential care and design training courses to meet their needs. I would like to ask the Minister of Family Services, yet again today, when he is prepared to implement that immediate establishment that his government said would be an immediate response to the Suche report. Hon.

Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, we did not have enough time to get into this in any detail last week or in Estimates, but I want to tell you that we could take that time today. We have struck a working committee that is a committee involving offi cials from the Department of Education, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health, as well as people from the community. It is going to be meeting on June 4 for its first meeting later this week, I might add.

This working group, as they get into their first meeting, will examine all of the issues that have come out of the Suche report. Once they have a chance to review the report and set the parameters for the committee, then they will get into dealing with some of the more specific issues that are raised in the Suche- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ms. Barrett: Mr.

Speaker, am I to understand, from the minister's response to my question, that the working committee that was established on April30 will be looking at and reviewing and discussing all of the "immediate resolutions" that were to be undertaken by this government, that nothing else- Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Your question, please. Ms. Barrett: -has been undertaken? Mr. Gll leshammer: Mr.

Speaker, un der the umbrella of the working group that we struck as our response to the Suche committee, a working committee which will implement the standardized reporting procedures and address the other system-wide issues raised in the report, I have indicated that that committee is being drawn together for the first time on the 4th of June. They will have a chance to review the parameters of the report, and other subcommittees will be struck from that to proceed with implementation. Ms. Barrett : So we will have to wait yet longer Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

The honourable member for Wellington, with your question, please. Ms. Barrett: To the Minister of Family Services, am I to understand then, from the minister's response, that the children of Manitoba will have to wait yet more time for the immediate implementation of the recommendations of the Suche report? Mr. Gllleshammer: Mr. Speaker, I thought the member understood that there were a number of the

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3990 recommendations that we accepted immediately, some that we can do in the short term, and certainly there are some long-term objectives. One of the short-term objectives was to bring forward the Office of the Child Advocate. Some members have shown some reluctance to speak on that issue and debate the issue and put their thoughts forward . We look to the member for support on that initiative and hope that we can proceed it through to the committee stage. Panel on Education Reform Report Release Mr. Dave Chomlak (KIIdonan): Mr.

Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. According to the minister's own schedule, her panel on education reform was to report to her on April10 with a report. My question to the minister is: Since it took four years, and the report on education funding was never made public, when will the panel of education reform make its report public? Hon. Rosemary Vodrey {Minister of Education and Training) : Mr. Speaker, as I have explained, the panel on educational reform met with a great deal of public interest in this province. There have then been an expanded number of public hearings.

There have been an extremely large number of presentations also made by mail. The panel on educational reform is in fact looking at all of those issues right now, and I expect them to report to me by later this spring. Mr. Chomlak: Since this panel will determine the future of education in the province in the next 20 years-1 noted the minister said the panel would report to her. Will the panel be providing a public report so the public can discuss all of these education reforms prior to the government providing some form of legislation? Mrs.

Vodrey: We were speaking about the process of reporting, and as I have said to the member, the first step in the process is to report to me as minister. Then we will look at how the public may be further involved in examining what has been put forward . * (1 430) Mr. Chomlak: So I can conclude from the minister's statements that the public will not be receiving copies of this report after extensive public hearings, et cetera? Mrs. Vodrey: I have not yet explained to the member the form in which the public will be involved.

There will be, first of all, a report to myself, and then we will determine the best way for the people of Manitoba to become involved. This government has been very comm itted to the process of consultation, and we look for the most appropriate method for Manitobans then to express their opinions. Mr. Speaker: Time for Oral Questions has expired. PRESEN TING PETITIONS Mr. Jack Penner{Ernerson): Mr.

Speaker, I would ask for the indulgence of the House and ask whether they might consider reverting back to Presenting Petitions. [Agreed] 1 beg to present the petition of the Providence College and Theological Seminary praying for the passing of

An Act to amend The Winnipeg Bible College and Theological Seminary Incorporation Act. Nonpolitical Statements Ms. Becky Barrett {Wellington): I wonder if I might have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] Mr. Speaker, today marks the first day of National Access Awareness Week which was kicked off nationally today in Winnipeg, and the federal minister responsible made some comments, as did the provincial Minister of Family Services (Mr. Gilleshammer). A very nice local Manitoba component of National Access Awareness Week and something that I think we should all be proud of is that Mr.

Henry Enns, who Is the Executive Director of the Disabled Peoples' Inter nati onal , wh ose interna tional headquarters is located in Winnipeg, has recently been honoured twice for his long-standing work on behalf of disabled people. First, he was provided with an honourary doctor of law degree from Queen's University, and second, a double first, if you will, in the earlier activities in Vancouver, Mr. Enns was awarded the President's Medal for Human Service at Independence '92. This is the President's Medal from the United States.

The reason it is a double first is this medal has never before been presented to a non-American, and secondly, it has never before been presented to anyone outside the continental United States.

3991 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 So on behalf of all of us here, I would like to congratulate Mr. Enns for not only his years of achievement, but for recognition of his work on behalf of the disabled in Manitoba. Hon. Harold Gllleshammer (Minister of Family Services): Mr.

Speaker, may I have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed] I, too, would like to add my comments on behalf of the government for the recognition that has been extended to Henry Enns who did attend a luncheon today with the federal minister, the Honourable Robert de Cotret, myself and some city dignitaries to start National Access Awareness Week, not only in Manitoba but across the country. In attending that conference today and attending the Independence '92 in Vancouver recently, Mr.

Henry Enns was prominently recognized there, as well as by the President of the United States and by the United Nations for the tremendous work that he has done on behalf of the disabled community, not only in Winnipeg in Manitoba, but in fact throughout the length and breadth of this country, and he has made a tremendous impact on the world stage as well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. *** Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) have leave to make a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed) Mr. Conrad Santos (Broadway): Mr.

Speaker, the month of June is now here, and it has been designated as Seniors Month in Manitoba. I just received in the mail a

schedule of activities for Sen ior s Day from the honour able Min ister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme). Members will recall that Seniors Day was initiated by the NDP government in the early 19 80s. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. lw ould liketo caution the honourable member for Broadway. You have been recognized for a nonpolitical statement. Pick and choose your words very carefu lly. Mr. Santos: I pay tribute to this government in cont inu ing that tradition. [interjection] Is that political?

When we reflect on the contribution of our senior citizens in building this province, for their unselfish devotion to building up this province, we cannot help but be inspired by the sacrifices and past activities of our senior citizens. This is a tribute to our senior citizens. I ask all members of the House to actively participate in commemoration of our tribute to our senior citizens. Thank you. Hon. Gerald Ducharme (Minister responsible for Seniors): I would like to rise on a nonpolitical statement? [Agreed) Mr.

Speaker, I would just like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers throughout Manitoba who will participate in Seniors Month of June. Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Inkster): I would ask for ·l eave to make a nonpolitical statement. [Agreed) Yes, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our caucus, I too would like to echo the remarks made by the Minister responsible for Seniors (Mr. Ducharme) and the member for Broadway (Mr. Santos) in terms of the importance and the significance of the month of June and the invaluable work that has been done in the past from our seniors and no doubt will be continued in the future.

Thank you very much. Committee Change Mr. Edward Helwer (Gimll): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Sturgeon Creek (Mr. McAlpine) , that the composition of the Standing Comm ittee on Pu blic Util ities and Natural Resources be amended as fol lows: the member for Lakeside (Mr. Enns) for the member for Turtle Mountain (Mr. Rose). [Agreed) House Business Hon. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr.

Speaker, before I move the Supply motion, I would like to indicate the Standing Com mittee on Public Utilities and Natu ral Resources will meet on Thursday, June 11 , at 10 a.m. to consider the 19 91 Annual Report of the Manitoba Liquor Control Commission. I understand the Estimates sequence is that Education is to be followed by Urban Aff airs.

I also understand that I made a mistake with respect to a motion passed last week, and I would ask for the unanimous consent of the House to allow for the Department of Northern Affa irs and Native Affairs, the motion combining those two activities, to follow the Department of Education whenever the Estimates of that department are concluded. Mr. Speaker: Does the honourable government House leader have leave to alter the sequence? Some Honourable Members: Leave.

June 1, 19 92 LEG ISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3992 Mr. Speaker: He does? In that order? Some Honourable Members: Leave. Mr. Speaker: Leave. It is agreed. Mr. Manness: I meant afte r Agriculture. Mr. Speaker: After Agriculture. Mr. Manness: Education to be followed by Urban Affairs. Mr. Speaker: Okay. Mr. Manness: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House- Mr. Speaker, before I move that, I would ask the members opposite if they would consider waiving private members' hour? Mr.

Speaker: Is it the will of the House to waive private members' hour? Some Honourable Members: No. Mr. Speaker: No, there is no leave. * (1 440) ORD ERS OF THE DAY Mr. Clayton Manness (Government House Leader): Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey), that Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair and the House resolve itself into a co mmittee to consider of the Supply that is to be granted to her Majesty. Motion agreed to, and the House resolved itself into a committee to consider of the Supply to be granted to Her Majesty with the honourable member for St. Norbert (Mr.

Laurendeau) in the Chair for the Department of Agriculture, and the honourable member for Seine River (Mrs. Dacquay) in the Chair for the Department of Education and Training. COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY (Concurrent Sections) AGRICULTURE Mr. Deputy Chairperson (Marcel Laurendeau): Will the Committee of Supply please come to order. This aft ernoon, this

section of the Committee of Supply me eti ng in Room 255 will resume consideration of the Estimates of the Department of Agriculture. When the committee last sat, it had been considering item 5.(

a) Northwest Region: (1 ) Salaries, on page 16 of the Estimates book. Shall the item pass? An Honourable Member: Which one? Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(a)

(1) Salaries $1 ,844,200-pass.

(2) Other Expenditures $395,900. Mr. John Plohman (Dauphin): Can the minister just indicate how the 4-H program is being carried out now since the changes that were made last year, the reductions in the staffi ng in all of the regions? Hon. Glen Findlay (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Deputy Chairperson, we have with us now, Andrew Dickson, the Director of Eastern/Interlake Region. With regard to the 4-H activities, effectively the activities are carrying on the same this year as in the past.

The duties that were previously carried out by the 4-H assistants have now been taken over by a variety of personnel in the department, primarily the extension staff , and probably it is fair to say a little more involvement of the volunteers in the 4-H program also. Mr. Plohman : Of all of the groups that were registering complaints last year, is it the minister's

interpretation that they are well satisfied with the new structure? There was a lot of con cern that leaders, volunteers, were going to have to put in a lot more time, the very limited time that they have, to ensure that the program would continue to function in various regions of the province. Do they feel that this has indeed happened, or has there been any reduction in the overall interest in 4-H, anything like that which the minister could use a yardstick to determine that things are moving along smoothly with regard to the department's interaction with 4-H? Mr.

Findlay: Certainly I have met with groups that were concerned. We talked about the issue and explained the realities of budgeting in government and the fact that 4-H has been successful for a long period of time in this province because of volunteers and extra effort put in by department staff. Clearly, people have picked up the ball, both in terms of within the department and putting out the extra effort to make the program successful and the volunteers also.

The numbers involved, basically the same number, a little over 5,000 people in the 4-H program , and the other expenditures, the department's, involved with 4-H have not changed. Only the program assistant expenditure was

3993 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 removed, and all the other expenditures associated with 4-H have remained. Mr. Plohman: So the minister has no current complaints that he is dealing with at the present time. Mr. Findlay: No. Mr. Nell Gaudry (St. Boniface) : Mr. Deputy Chairperson, in regard to the staff, there is 4226. Are they all located in the regions or are they located in the Winnipeg area? Has there been any decentralization? Mr. Findlay: Yes, in the Supplementary Estimates book, the member is probably on page 65. Is that right? Mr. Gaudry: Yes. Mr. Findlay: Yes.

The number of staff there, 42, are all in the Northwest Region; on the next page, 43 staff, all in the Southwest Region; 46, all in the Central Region; and Eastern/Interlake 53 staff, and they are all outside the city in all those regions. Mr. Gaudry: In the decentralization program, there were none of those staff who were decentralized in the past year or two years? Mr. Findlay: They were all already decentralized. Mr. Dep uty Chair person : Ite m 5.( 2) Oth er Expenditures $395,900-pass. 5.(

b) Sout hwest Regio n: (1 ) Salaries $1 ,784, 900 - pass;

(2) Ot her Expendi tu res $328,000 -pass. 5.(

c) Central Region: (1 ) Salaries $1 ,939,300. • (1 450) Mr. Plohman: Jus t a general question dealing with all of these in terms of the amount of extension work that can be done, I guess the minister stated a lot of the time has been spent with GRIP over the last year and this year as well, so that this massive additional manpower, people power, has obviously required staff to leave other matters that they should be assisting farmers with in general extension work in areas of their specialization. Is that normalizing itself at the present time, people being able to get back to it?

It would seem to me that during the difficult time in agriculture with the low prices and the need to diversify and to look for other ways to be more eff icient, to earn more income from other sources, that there would tend to be a greater need for extension services. It seems that the minister would have seen Jess there since he has not increased staff in those areas and he has used those staff for other things such as GRIP. How is that need being met? Does the minister not agree that there perhaps is a bit of a gap there over the last while? Mr.

Findlay: Certainly when we were talking about crop insurance, we gave the member an idea of the amount of time that was involved in '91 and again in '92. I think it was some 7,000 days, I believe, of '91 and '92 and approximately half so far in this particular fiscal year. As I said then, too, a number of staff had indicated that they had a greater, broader understanding of agriculture with the one-on-one client contact they had through their work for GRIP. It broadened their horizons and it also gave department staff more contact with our clients, which is important a Ia our Visions for the 19 90s document.

Certainly, the staff, in terms of their ongoing activities, have had to reprioritize some of the things they do and try to maximize their ability to work with clients more in groups and associations as opposed to one on one. It is our hope that in the coming months and years that particularly the specialists can spend more and more of their time working in those areas. There is no question that the ag reps and the ag rep offices will continue to be a contact point for our clients, any and all things associated with agriculture and certainly continuing to include work on crop insurance and revenue insurance.

Right now we estimate the time involved by the ag reps on crop insurance and revenue insurance is approximately 20 percent, but it does create client contacts, and in terms of the department extending its activities to those clients in broader and broader areas, is seen to be important both by the client and by the staff member. Mr. Plohman: Rnally, does the minister feel that they have been able to absorb this additional function?

It is now 20 percent of an ag rep's time, according to what you just said, that they were able to absorb that without it impacting on other services that they have traditionally provided to farmers. Mr. Findlay: It is difficult to definitively answer yes or no, but as I said earlier, I think the fact that more clients came through the ag rep's door has to be seen as a positive, both for the department and for the client. It created greater contact and a greater understanding of the roles we can play, and maybe more likely to rely on that ag rep and that office in

June 1, 19 92 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MANIT OBA 3994 the future, not only for revenue insurance and crop insurance but for other services they may want. It is a constant ongoing battle to try to convince the client that we have services that they should use. I thought this process caused an interface between the client and the extension people that will seem to be-have a positive spinoff, but to definitively answer yes or no to the basic question is tough_. I think there are obviously a few negatives; I think there are also some positives in additional contact that was created in this fa shion. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(

c) Central Region:

(1) Salaries $1,9 39,300-pass;

(2) Other Expenditures $342,000-pass. 5.(

d) Easte rn/I nte rlake Region: Salaries $2, 14 0 ,9 00- pass;

(2) Oth er Expend itures $491 ,800-pass. 5.(

e) Agricultural Crown Lands Branch: (1 ) Salaries $1 ,225,600. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, perhaps the minister could provide us with a list of the current members of the Crown lands appeal board. Mr. Findlay: The members of the Crown Lands Advisory Committee who also serve as an appeal com mittee are : Chair person Jim Pollock; Vice-Chairman Lavern Elliott; members, Margaret Brincheski, Bill Skogan and Albert Strick. Mr. Plohman: Sorry, I meant to ask also where they are from in the province? Mr. Findlay: Chairman Jim Pollock from Neepawa. Lavern Ell iott is from Grandvi ew.

Margaret Brincheski is from Lac du Bonnet. Bill Skogan is from Teulon, and Albert Strick is from Inwood. Mr. Plohman: Is there anyone from the Parkland region of the province? I missed it. Mr. Findlay: Grandview. Mr. Plohman: That is who? Mr. Findlay: Lavern Elliott is from Grandview. Mr. Plohman : Okay. Is there any change to the point system that is used for awarding Crown lands contemplated or that has taken place? Mr. Findlay: Maybe ask the member over what time frame is he talking? Mr. Plohman : During this past year. * (1 500) Mr.

Findlay: The basic policy of awarding Crown land on the basis of points has not changed. But basically there are always some refinemen ts that are seen appropriate year in, year out, including the opportunity in certain particular unique situations for directors to use their own discretion as to whether the basic policy is the best for that situation or something else is needed. But the basic policy for awarding of points has not changed. Mr. Plohman: What system was used in The Pas for the new Polder Ill lands that were designated? Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, I neglected to introduce John Neabel, our director of Agriculture Crown Lands, who now lives in Minnedosa in a nice, new building. The member is refe rring to Polder Ill, it was a whole new track of land which was to be allocated for the first time, and directors used the point system, but had a proviso in there that the maximum that any one individual could get would be three quarters of land. Other than that the point system functioned, but a maximum of three quarters for any one applicant. Mr.

Plohman: Well, when was that stipulation put in, that the maximum would be three quarters?-because I understand in January there was a meeting up at The Pas, the Local Government District of Consol, at the LGD office there. There were Crown land reps and farmers there, and they talked about whether they wanted to change the system. They had a vote even on it and decided not to, but at that time, after that, there was an award made based on the point system. As a matter of fact, I have been inf ormed that according to the point system one person had been approved of 14 quarters on that basis alone.

Bert Reming, the supervisor for Northwest region was involved and had informed this person, Morris Smigelsky, about this fact, but he also asked him to maybe release some of the land. The whole idea of the meeting in January, I understand, was to enable younger farmers to get started who could not meet the points because they were not established yet. It is kind of like a vicious circle, as the minister will understand, that, you know, if you do not have a herd of cattle, it is very diffi cult for you to be granted a piece of Crown land, yet you need that piece of Crown land in order to have a viable operation.

So here we had some individuals, established farmers , who wanted to help younger farmers get established, and yet the majority said, look, you

3995 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 cannot change the system in mainstream. You have to leave it alone. So they went ahead and they left it alone, according to the farmers. Of course, they did not establish the final criteria obviously, because the government changed the system after that. When did they put in this limit of three quarters, because I understand that some farmers were, according to the point system, given much more than that, initially. Mr. Findlay: Mr.

Deputy Chairperson, both the LGD of Consol and the farmers associ�tion of The Pas had contacted Crown Lands and thought that it would be best in the process of allocating the 18 parcels in question that the maximum number of producers be given an opportunity to access some of the land. As the member has indicated, one far mer would have under the old system, if nothing was changed, received the vast majority of the parcels. The member says 14 .

The actual number was 13 , but Crown Lands staff and the advisory committee both believed it would be inappropriate for one individual on a new track of land to get 13 out of the 18 parcels. After representation from the LGD of Consol's council and the farmers association, they deemed it appropriate to limit the access to a maximum of three quarters. The basic proviso that was wanted up there was that the majority of land would not go to one person but be spread amongst as many producers as possible.

That was arrived at after the meeting in January, up in the area, to discuss whether the policy of letting 13 of the 18 go to one individual or spreading it around to as many people as possible should be the way to go. Mr. Plohman: Well, on the surface, that seems to make sense if it was done from the outset. I unde rstand that this meeting in January was attended by Bert Fleming and Brent Erlenson from Swan River, and that three days after that meeting, Bert Fleming phoned Morris Smigelsky and told him that he had 14 quarters according to Morris-his letter-on the allocation.

He then asked me, this is Bert Fleming, if I was willing to give up some of this land to help out some of these farmers starting out. The impression was left with him that he had the authority, because these were granted to him, to make that kind of a decision, and he was one of those at the meeting speaking up for that, so it certainly was consistent in what he did at that time. He actually did sign some papers saying that he was willing to give up these seven pieces of land. He said, seeing this w as my objective at the meeting, I said I would only if it was given to people who needed it.

The land rep from Swan River was then sent up to The Pas the next day to get me to sign a document to release this land. In fact, he did sign on February 24 a document with Brent Erlenson's name on it, plus Morris Smigelsky's name. He signed it subject to another person also giving up their rights and waiving their rights to it, so that it would go to a new farm er, a young fa rmer who would get established, Gary Lajambe was his name here. I do not know if I am pronouncing it right, but it is L-a-j-a-m-b-e. Here we have a situation where there is a meeting held.

There is an award made based on the point system, then an effort to have on a voluntary basis people deviate from that system, which I think is the sensible way to go, since we have a point system in place and then, after that, notwithstanding that, a total deviation from that. To think that would not cause a great deal of hard feelin gs is, I think, completely naive. What are the minister's comments on that? Mr. Findlay: The land and the 18 parcels in question were never allocated at the point the member is talking about, in February.

There were preliminary considerations given, and Morris was asked if he would give certain lands up, but the request for him to give it up was not giving him the opportunity then to put a condition on it. The kind of conditions he wanted to put on it then made him the allocator of the land which the advisory committee did not see as appropriate. They felt that the most appropriate way was to put a ceiling of three parcels for any individual, and then use the point system for any and all other individuals to have equal access to it. Morris's approach was that he would then be the allocator of the land.

I do not think the member would have been happy with that, if we had allowed that to happen. I think the advisory committee and the staff were under some difficult circumstances to try to resolve that in the majority interest of the farmers in the area, as opposed to one individual, who, if the rule of thumb was followed, would have gotten 13 or 14 out of the 18 parcels, which I do not think would have been very constructive for allowing

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3996 more people to develop in the cattle business in the Polder area. Neither the committee nor myself saw it as appropriate that Morris should have the right to allocate the land. • (1 51 0) Mr. Plohman : I do not think anyone is advocating that any one individual should allocate the land. So let the minister not leave that impression or even attempt to leave it here, if he thinks that this is what I am advocating. What I am advocating is that the minister-{interjection] Well, no, the minister is a very poor listener, quite fr ankly.

In the House today, you were a poor listener. You were a poor listener today. The Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) has nothing to say here. This does not involve him. Mr. Deputy Chairperson, I said very specifically to the minister that he changed the rules in midstream. That is the problem here, and I said there were hard feelings created. Does the minister remember that? I did say that just now. That is what I was saying. I did not say that I was advocating that one individual should be allowed to allocate the lands.

I said to the minister he created hard feelings by not having his act together in the first place. Surely he knew that Polder Ill was coming up, and if there were 18 quarters of land that had to be allocated, there would have to be a system put in place before anything happened. I think he got off on the right foot by having the meeting. He got off on the wrong foot a few days after through his department sending up, first a phone call to say, would you mind, and then sending up a land representative to get his signature on these sheets.

What kind of a message does that give to an individual farm er, when a land representative comes up and gets him to sign the sheet and he signs his name as a witness? Does that not seem to leave the impression with the minister that the farmer expects that this carries some weight? This is a representative from his department. So I am saying to the minister that he has messed this up.

I wish that he would have started all over again, rather than causing this kind of a problem in the first place-t hat he would just have started and gone back and consulted again with the farmers to develop a system they could live with before allocating the land, rather than going ahead half on the old system, half on the new. No one knew what the rules were, and he has really got a mess on his hands now. As a matter of fact, they used the point system in some instances and then rejected it in the appeal. So people did not know what the rules were at all. How can you deal with a system like that?

How can any farmer, having it just at a political whim or the discretion of somebody? On what basis? There are no rules anymore. Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the member gets carried away in his rhetoric at times. I would like to bring him back to the reality. The committee had a difficult process to allocate the land. I have to feel the member agrees that it should go to as many people as possible rather than the majority going to one individual. I have to assume he would agree with that.

The committee used the point system to allocate to everybody in the first go-around, up to the maximum of three parcels. Once somebody had reached the maximum of three parcels, they were then taken out of the system. Their application for any further parcels was removed, and the point system was used for additional applicants who now were on the table for allocation. So the point system was used continuously throughout with the one extra proviso, the maximum of three parcels per individual.

That responds to the LGD of Consol and the farmer's association which wanted the land to be allocated to as many producers as possible in the area. Mr. Plohman: Why would not the advisory board and the minister, obviously in consultation, because this was a major initiative-the minister had to be involved in the criteria that were being established. Is that not correct? Mr.

Findlay: I became aware late in the process, but I did agree, as I just indicated, that one individual should not get 13 or 14 parcels out of the 18 , that the use of a three parcel maximum would be appropriate, but that the point system be used thereafter, and that is what was done. Mr. Plohman: Can the minister indicate when the advisory committee put the limit of three on? What was the date? Mr. Findlay: We do not have the exact date, but it would be approximately March 1 that the committee decided that this would be the most appropriate way

3997 LEGISLATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 to allocate that land, and then the allocations are made at about the same time. Mr. Piohman: Why did the advisory committee not at least allow the people with the highest points to have the choice of the land that they would be getting? Since they had the highest points and they were not going to be getting all of those entitled to them under the point system, at least allow them to choose those three that they wanted of the ones they were eligible for under the point system. Mr.

Findlay: In the allocation, the three parcels that Morris Smigelsky received were the three parcels deemed to be the three with highest productivity of the 18 parcels in question. Mr. Plohman: Not the three that he wanted, is that correct? • (1 520) Mr. Find lay: It is our under standing that in discussion between Mr. Smigelsky and the agents, he agreed that those three quarters that were allocated to him were the three best quarters. Mr.

Plohman: How can the minister justify people getting land under this discretionary system-what is it called, the director's choice or whatever-people who would not qualify under the point system at all, even though they were not young or new farmers starting out? It would seem to me the objective would be to ensure that all new farmers who want to start out would have been given some land out of this new discretionary system that was used so that it would assist and promote the development of new far mers. Was that the major objective of the minister in deviating from the point system for this? Mr.

Findlay: The member talks about director's discretion, and the only discretion used in the process was a decision to maximize the number of people who got access to that Crown land. That was putting the three parcel cap on. In the process of awarding the 18 parcels, there were 11 applicants. Seven received allocations in Polder Ill, and three of the remaining four received allocations elsewhere from Crown Lands outside the Polder area, so 1 0 of the 11 received allocations, and one person did not receive ali allocation, and the points awarded were very low in that particular instance.

The only discretionary move was to limit the amount of land that one individual could acquire in this new allocation. Mr. Plohman: If that is the case, why would the second-place person on the point system then not get the land after the fi rst-place person was disqualified because he already had three? For example, I cannot understand how a person dealing with NE 17 -54-27 WPM drain, whatever that means- Morris Smigelsky had- (interjection) NE 17 -54-27 WPM, EXC-maybe the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Downey) knows what that means, drain-{interjection]. Okay.

No, but the exact drain, what is the EXC drain mean? An Honourable Member: We will have to ask. Mr. Plohman: Well, that is what I was wondering . In any event, the person there, Morris Smigelsky, had 69 points. Armand LeSann had 16 , and he was given that piece of land. Under any other circumstances, I cannot understand how a person with 16 points-unless there was some other criteria employed at that point in the process, in other words, director's discretion used, that could not have happened. Mr.

Findlay: In terms of the three parcel cap being applied, this parcel fell into the category of being over the three parcel cap, and Armand LeSann with 16 points was in second place, so it went to him. Mr. Plohman: Well, again, I have to go back to the criteria that the minister had used insofar as new farmers getting land. How many of these seven people were new farmers , young farmers who would otherwise not have been eligible for land? Mr. Findlay: The discretionary decision that was made, as I will tell the member for about the fifth time, was to allocate to the maximum number of producers.

We all know it is difficult for a new producer to get started, the chicken and egg situation, but if you are going to follow the allocation rules and the point system, and I think that is the appropriate thing to do, then you end up allocating it to the people with the most points. There are a number of factors that go into the point system. We do not know from the information we have how many of the seven applicants who were successful were new farm ers. Mr. Plohman: Well, the minister just changed the process. He said he told me for the fifth time. First he told me that the only director's discretion that was

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 3998 used was to limit the maximum to any individual to three quarters. Now he says-for the fifth time, he says-that the director's discretion was to allocate the land to the maximum number of producers. Which is it? If it was the maximum number of producers, particularly young farmers, then that should have been the overriding criterion above and beyond the three. I would say, and it is my position here, that director's discretion was used more than just for the capping at three quarters. The minister has even acknowledged that.

Now he says it was to ensure that the land went to the maximum number of producers. Mr. Findlay: Using the point system with three partial cap in place. Mr. Piohman: Was there-and if there was not, why was there not- some special criteria in terms of awarding points to a young farmer who wanted to get established? Mr. Findlay: Well, in the situation that the member is talking about, trying to be sure that new producers have opportunities to access the land, the existing point system does not really allow for that. It does not award a large number of points either for age or for a new producer.

It awards points on the basis of having cattle or having the capacity to expand your herd and therefore need more land. So if the member is suggesting that the point system should be changed to make it more accessible for young producers, I would not dispute that as something that should be done in the future. Mr.

Plohman: Well, was that not the point of deviating from this in the first place, to try to give these new farmers an opportunity to get some additional land, not to just allow some big operators to get additional land and not give it to one operator who really qualified by the point system so you would spread it out to the others who were already owning or leasing large amounts of land, but to try to get some of these new producers, a maximum number?

If the minister had thought that through, it would seem to me that in that case, he should have awarded some points, because he is deviating from the point system anyway, so at that point, set up new criteria and go back to the farmers before awarding the land and say, look, under these circumstances, we know that you appreciate that younger farmers have a difficult time to get started. We would like to assist in this case. There is new land coming on stream. We would like to put in place a point system that would award a new farmer, for example, say, 20 points just right off the bat.

That way you would not see cases where a person like Armand LaSann, for 27 points and 16 points, he would get two quarter sections of land as the second highest in terms of points. * (1 530) Mr. Findlay: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, the decision of the committee was that the point system would be used with a cap of three parcels in place. You raise one particular producer. We do know that he has a son involved, so at least one could assume that by allocating to him, there was an opportunity for another young person to get involved in agriculture in a larger way.

To add another criterion that it should go just to young producers would require some consideration by the committee as to the overall impact it would have on existing producers who have cattle and need access to this kind of land. It is always an ongoing problem to get young producers involved. You make an allocation to a young producer who has no cattle. He is given, say, a year to get that land stocked, and then what do you do? He has maybe one-quarter of the cattle that he committed to get because he could not raise the financing for any more. What do you do then?

Do you say, well, the guy next door has a bunch of cattle; he has reason to use the land; the land is there, and you are not able to mee t your commitmemt. You have to cut him back. It is between a rock and hard spot for the committee in terms of trying to be sure that they do the allocation, that the land is properly used, and it serves the best needs of the cattle industry in terms of producers being allowed to grow whether they are existing or whether they are young.

I acknowledge there is a problem there, and I am sure the committee has thought long and hard about how they can properly allocate and consider the interests of the new incoming producer who does not really have any cattle yet. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, was this three cap used in previous situations, this three quarter

section cap used in any other situations in the province that the minister is aware of? Mr. Findlay: No, the Crown Lands Branch has not used the three cap limit for mally in the past, but in the instances where an individual has a fair bit of

3999 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBL Y OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 Crown land in his name and qualifies for more, discussions have been held to ask him to back off, to ask him the basic question, does he really need it, or whether there may be other people who need it, and in those negotiated instances, many people have backed off to allow somebody who maybe has greater need to be allowed access to it. Mr.

Plohman: Yes, I think there could have been some threshold used, some other criteria established in a little more sophisticated way than just saying a three cap maximum for an individual if he is way ahead in terms of points. I do not know whether there was any cutoff, but then to allocate on the basis of points after that when people are getting the land on a very low point value when there are new farmers there who want to get started, who could be given an opportunity, and that land can be reallocated again if they run out of money.

The minister says that maybe their loan does not come through or whatever happens. They should have been given that opportunity. I think the minister did not consider with his committee and staff that this should be the highest priority, and they should have followed through with some additional discussions afte r that meeting, rather than having that one meeting, proceeding in one way with the point system and then switching in the middle after people were under the impression that this was going to be discussed more before decisions were made. Mr.

Findlay: I think I told the member earlier that there were 11 applications for these 18 parcels. Seven people received allocations in Polder. Three more received allocations elsewhere, of Crown lands. That means only one of the 11 did not receive an allocation. Is this the one we are talking about? Mr. Plohman: Mr. Deputy Chairperson, they did not get a reasonable amount of land that they would have liked to have gotten. I have a letter here, for example, that Allan Anderson has sent in where he states that he had actually more points than Tony Markus, yet was not given the parcel of land. That was Lot 2-54-27 W.

He says he has to travel15 miles for hay which costs over $4,000 a year to buy, no t counting transportation. It costs him over $2,000 for pasture fees a year. He has a 14 -year-old son who is interested in farm ing. Mr. Findlay: Yes, Mr. Anderson appealed his allocation and the consideration at the time was that the parcels he received were drier and more usable than other parcels that maybe he might have been looking at. He went through the appeal process so his opportunity to be allocated on the basis of justifiable points was done the first time, and then done again through the appeal process. Mr.

Plohman: It seems that there was very little confidence in what criteria was being used at that point by the board after deviating from the system and people getting land with such few points, that they would perhaps never be granted land under those circumstances, they would not be eligible under most circumstances. I have a letter here dated May 21 that went to the Ombudsman, and the minister's department will probably be getting questions there. This is from Morris Smigelsky in which he asks a number of questions about the way this process was handled.

I am not going to read it into the record, but I think it is sufficient to say in the interest of time here that this was handled very badly as far as I can see. I think it was begun right and it was a very positive thing to have the meeting and to talk about it, but then it was just abandoned. Whatever was said there and the decision by the farmer's initial meeting, it was just abandoned by the staff. They just ignored what happened and went ahead with a whole new system that no one could figur e out in the middle of it.

I think it was wrong, and I think the minister should have used a more objective criteria and more consultation before establishing it. Mr. Findlay: I would like to remind the member that, I do not know what report he got from the meeting that was held, but the meeting got a little carried away and some of the comments producers were making were the kind of comments that would not be made in a normal meeting. Basically, they say the meeting broke down and there were shouts above the furor saying, if we cannot agree on anything then we use the point system.

So, technically, they did use the point system but put the cap in place so that one producer did not get 13 or 14 out of the 18 parcels. I am surprised the member is now arguing in favour of one person getting 13 or 14 parcels out of the 18 to be allocated. Mr. Plohman: I think the minister should not argue that three parcels is fair when that person was eligible for 13 or 14 . Perhaps, he should have been eligible for four, five, six. Who knows where the cutoff should have been? It could have been done on some type of point system basis,

whereas If he

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA 4000 had 70 points and the next had 16 that it would not be given on the basis of points to the second one. It wculd be based on some other criteria that would be established. I think that the minister's arbitrary cutoff at three was unfair, was very arbitrary in this case, for an individual under those circumstances. That is what I am saying. Mr.

Findlay: I think the member also needs to have some information that has not been given out yet and that this individual, at this point in time, has 4,827 acres allocated to him, a rather substantial tract of Crown land, and that is what the committee had to take into consideration. Mr. Plohman: Right, and there are other large operators up there who also received land on this who did not qualify with the points, but yet they were given land with very low points, very large operators. The Markuses are certainly large operators there I believe.

The LeSanns are large operators, many more who are listed on this, not just Morris Smigelsky. So the minister can use that and say, well, you cannot be too big now. I am rather shocked that the minister would be arguing that he is against big farmers. My angle is fairness and establishing the criteria before hand, so they play by the same rules. I think that this got to be a real mess and has created a lot of hard feelings and it did not have to. * (1 540) Mr.

Findlay: I think it is fair to say that the staff held the meeting with the hope that there could be some agreement by all involved and that the meeting just did not evolve that way. It broke down and there was no consensus amongst the people there that there be something they could accept. So the staff had to do one of two things, just go with the basic criteria and let one individual get the majority of the land. They thought that was inappropriate, and I agree with them. They used a cap criteria. We knew at the end it was not going to be seen as being fair by somebody.

Certainly, that is the case. ! think in the overall interest to fairness to the majority of the 11 applicants, when 1 0 out of the 11 get an allocation either in or out of Polder, a reasonable degree of fairness did occur. The point system is never going to be perfect, because there are always extenuating circumstances and somebody always sees things a little differently than what the truth is. There is always conflict in the point system. The only other system one can go to is a tender system. I wonder if the member is advocating that would be the appropriate way to go in the futu re. Mr.

Plohman: I think we used the point system for a number of years, and I think the minister knows that under these circumstances he deviated from it and he perhaps should have devised a better, fairer system for this situation, which he did not do. They took a very simplistic view, put a cap of three and then used the point system below that, where people got on the basis of points, that would not normally have been awarded. Therefore, they might as well have thrown it all out at that point and tried to appropriate this land to all of the young farmers in a very equitable way.

It could have been done, I believe, in a better way than it was handled. Mr. Deputy Chairperson: Item 5.(

e) Agricultural Cr own Lands Branch : (1 ) Salaries $1 ,225,600 - pass;

(2) Ot her Expend itures $507, 700-pass. 5.(

f) Less: Recov er able from Oth er Appropriations $546,800-pass. Resolution 1 0: RESOLVED that there be granted to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding $1 0,453,500 for Agriculture, Regional Agricultural Services Division, for the fiscal year ending the 31s t day of March, 19 93-pass. Item 6. Policy and Economics Division, (

a) Administration: (1 ) Salaries $1 01 ,300. Mr. Plohman: Is this the

section we can discuss the minister's policy on transportation? Mr. Findlay: Any time. Mr. Plohman: The minister last December, when we opened the Legislature, proudly stated that he was one of the sponsoring jurisdictions of the transportation talks process that the federal government had initiated in consultation with a number of provinces. The Manitoba logo is on the back of the transportation talks document that came out, the Manitoba logo, which demonstrates the support of the Minister of Agriculture, for the initiative that the federal government was undertaking. (Mr.

Bob Rose, Acting Deputy Chairperson, in the Chair) This initiative, if we can call it that, cost $1 .1 million, involved some 13 0 meetings in western Canada, to get the views of farmers particularly, I guess, of the public in general on the Crow method of payment, and on pooling and a couple of other issues, I guess, that arose at that time. At the time

4001 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 that these meetings were going to be held, we had raised concerns with the content of the workshops and the structure of the workshops, the process itself, that it would not be meaningful, that it was skewed in favo ur of change to the system rather than providing objective inform ation. We had raised a number of concerns. For example, one of the lines that was included in the presentations was the rail line to, and the fa cilities at Churchill should be eliminated. That kind of statement was in the document that Peat Marwick was distributing at that time.

It was later removed and worded in a more positive way. I have to ask the minister how he could allow that kind of negative statement about Churchill, which his government claims -and his Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) is sitting here-and he says he is banging his head against the wall trying to do his best to maintain and expand Churchill, I guess much to the chagrin of his colleague sitting next to him there.

I have to say, when that is government policy, how can this minister not first screen what is going out, if he is endorsing the process and endorsing the meetings, and ensure that those kinds of workshops do not have statements and leanings in them that are detrimental to Manitoba's best interests and the interests of Manitoba farmers. Mr. Findlay: The mem ber is talking about Chur chill. There were three preliminary pilot meetings that were held, two in Saskatchewan and one in Alberta.

Subsequent to that, there were certainly no negative statements on Churchill that I am aware of. let me just read the statement out of "let's Talk System Ef ficiency on Churchill." The issue is whether the rail line to and the fac ilities at the Port of Churchill should be upgraded and if so, who should pay the costs? Shipments through Churchill have been down in recent years, and most estimates show it would cost a significant amount of money to upgrade the rail line and fa cilities at the port and purchase new cars.

Some believe the cost of these improvements is too high, and in many cases farmers should not have to bear these costs. Others believe Churchill is important to national defence, Canada's sovereignty in the North and regional development. The Minister of Transport is currently reviewing policy regarding Churchill. I do not see anything negative about Churchill in that. It is just stating the facts. I think it is fair to say that producers should not have to bear all the cost of maintaining that line. It is used for many other things.

You know, that is one of the reasons why these talks were held, to try to make producers aware that more and more costs through the WGT Act in 19 83-w hich was put in place when I believe maybe the member for Dauphin (Mr. Plohman) was the Minister of Transport in the Province of Manitoba. He allowed that document to get into place which would force producers to pay more and more for transporting grain in the future, locked into a WGT Act in 1 983, meaning that producers paid the first 6 percent of inflation and all the costs over 31 .5 million tonnes. Those are the basic problems that the farm community face s.

Costs may go down in the system, but the costs to the producer go up. There was a headline in the Co-operator here two or three months ago when the NT A announced their rail line charges for 19 92-93 crop year, which said rail costs go down but farmers costs go up, and that I thought was a very classical statement. That is just exactly what has been going on.

The whole process that we went through here was to try to give producers a better handle on what they have· been committed to for the WGT Act of 19 83, and in the process of the costs going up and all the costs being passed back to the farm gate makes it more and more difficult for the farmer to compete in the export market. When you look at the costs that the farm er has to pay now, he is paying roughly $20 a tonne for elevation. He is paying about $1 1 for freight out of his own pocket. The government is paying $21 freight on his behalf.

If it is going out through the eastern ports, you have $20 of lake freight tagged on top of that. Everybody from the farm gate on is making a pretty good living on handling and transporting this grain, and they only have to handle it for a few days, and they pocket their money. * (1 550) The farmer-a whole year and he is not getting enough to survive on in the present system. We are not going to be able to compete in the world market unless we can get our costs down from the farm gate to the consumer wherever in the world.

That is the purpose, to make people-1 shou ld not say make-give them an opportunity to understand better what they face in the future in terms of increased costs.

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4002 Our elevation costs have gone up substantively since 19 84. Our fre ight costs have gone up, and the value of the commodity being exported is going down and down and down. I think the general public has to understand the farm er cannot afford to bear these costs on a continuous basis, the way the old WGT Act had spelled them out. Mr. Plohman: We protested the Western Grain Transportation Act. Let the minister not leave the impression we did not-every step of the way.

I want to ask the minister if his staff had input into the materials that were presented at the workshops and any of the research materia l that was presented. Mr. Findlay: Our staff, along with staff in Saskatchewan and Alberta, were involved in putting information together for transportation talks, but the final document as it came out, we were not quite as happy as we would like to have been with what came out, with the information as presented at the meetings by Peat Marwick. It was Peat Marwick with the federal government that was involved in deciding what information would be presented at that time. Mr.

Plohman: Why would you not have included a

section that would show the use of Churchill as an effi ciency measure, rather than a cost to the system? What I am getting at is that we all know that the transportation costs to Churchill are lower than they are for transporting to other ports. When you consider the other costs associated with those ports, the overall costs to the farmer can be some $20 to $24 a tonne less, yet maximizing the use of Churchill was not one of the issues discussed. Peat Marwick had no information on that.

When we went to the meetings, myself and my colleagues, there was no information that they could present to demonstrate or to refute a statement that Churchill is more effic ient. They had nothing on it. That is one of my greatest criticisms, that they did not have this information that would show the impact of Churchill under various scenarios, for example, at 500,000 tonnes, at a million tonnes, at two million tonnes, and how much money that could put in the pockets of farmers by maximizing the use of the port. That is efficient use of the system. It was not discussed in that way.

It was discussed in a negative way initially by saying the only way under efficie ncy-the rail line to, and this is a quote, and facilities at Churchill should be eliminated. After that was disputed and people were upset with it, after it was raised publicly, and we raised it in provincial affa irs, we raised it in as many foru ms as we could, it was changed to the rail line fa cilities should be upgraded. So it was a more positive statement in the final version, but it talked only about upgrading as if there is going to be a lot of costs associated.

Whenever you say that to fa rmers, naturally, they are going to say, oh, how much is that going to cost us? So if there was any way to slant this negatively for the farmers, I think it was done, because Peat Marwick could not and did not provide any information as to who should pay for that or what the savings would be for the farmers if Churchill was maximized, like to two million tonnes per year, for example.

I thought this was a golden opportunity when going before the farmers of Manitoba to educate them about Churchill, rather than allowing them to simply use the information that the detractors of Churchill constantly use about draining all these dollars and sucking money from the farmers, a high-cost port, when it is not a high-cost port. That was not balanced in those meetings. There was no information presented. I think the minister, what I am saying is, he had an opportunity to present that information, and I ask him why he did not ensure that they had included that kind of information in Manitoba at least. Mr.

Findlay: Certainly, the question at Churchill has always been a very difficult question. I think the member also knows that the largest amount of grain that shoul d come in thr ough Chur chill, the ca tch men t basin is really into northern Saskatchewan, more so than into Manitoba. The Minister of Highways and Transportation (Mr. Driedger) is here, and we have certainly met with the Wheat Board on more than one occasion. They are the major sales agency, and we constantly ask them why the Port of Churchill is not used more.

They say that they are constantly advocating the use of the port whenever they are talking a sales agreement with a country that could use the port. They try to advocate that it would be the best port to use; it has some cost eff iciencies as the member indicates. But the reality that they face is that the buyer of the grain determines where he will pick it up. Either that or the shipper of the grain determines where they will pick it up. It is very difficult for the Wheat Board to advocate the use of

4003 LEGISLA TIVE ASSEMBLY OF MAN ITOBA June 1, 19 92 Churchill because the majority of people want to pick up the grain on short notice-what is the right term?-just-in-time kind of buying. They prefer 1 2-month ports which makes the west coast very attractive. Churchill, and the cost they save, is only open at most three months of the year, and I know as the member is indicating, it probably could be kept open longer if there was a will to do that.

They seem to be prepared to use the Thunder Bay route more than Churchill, at least that is the comment the Wheat Board hears from both the buyer of the grain and the shippers. The Wh eat Boa rd fe els tha t they would disadvantage the far mers if they were to put a lot of grain in Churchill and then go out and try to sell it because they know the buyer would bid them down saying, well, we prefer to pick it up somewhere else. It disadvantages the farmer, although in certain theoretical terms, it may be cheaper to put grain through Churchill.

There are a lot of practical limitations that prevent us from being able to achieve it to the extent we would like for both the economy of the Port of Churchill, the economy of the province , and certainly the econ omy of the producers who are exporting the grain. There was no limitation on somebody wanting to make presentation to bring Information to the meetings, the transportation talks meetings, and certainly we did not advocate anything other than positives. We advocated nothing but positives for the Port of Chur ch ill.

As I said, the federal governmen t and Peat Marwick put the final information together and the Port of Churchill discussion still continues. Mr. Plohman: Mr. Acting Deputy Chairperson, just to switch gears a little bit here-the minister has always indicated that he has not made up his mind about the method of payment, that he is not for paying the producer necessarily. That is the way I would characterize his position or his public position at least in the House. Yet, on January 26, he was interviewed by Harry Siemens on the MTN Manitoba Farm Report on Sunday, and I have a copy of the transcript.

On two occasions he says that we will have to, quote, alter the method by which that process, that payment is made. That was one quote, and another, clearly we have to do some program changes that were consistent with the framework of the GATT agreement, and this was also in refer ence to GATT, the first statement. It seems that the minister has prejudged GATT -and he is using GATT, I call it an excuse, he can call it something else-to perhaps muse now about his true feelings about the method of payment. Does the minister dispute that in fact it is not just the fact that there is a potential GATT agreement?

I do not even know where that is at now. We can discuss that a bit here too, I guess. I think that just points to the fact that the minister, if he was just going to attribute this to GATT, was very premature on January 26 to be making that kind of statement. One of the reasons why our bargaining positions in Canada is not as strong as it should be is because people are going around making concessions before we even get any kind of a deal made.

I wonder why would we be musing about having to change the method of payment to make it GA TTable when it was not even close to a deal, and there still is no deal as I understand it. Is it not a fact that the minister is just showing his inclination to wanting to change the method of payment? * (1 600) Mr. Findlay: The inclination I had in making those comments and the same inclination I have today is to maximize the ability of western Canadian grain farmers to be competitive in the world market, also to maximize their ability to use that $720 million every year.

The GATT process December 20, the Dunkel text came down in which he laid out internal supports, external supports and rates of reduction, and he identified WGTA west as being an export subsidy which would be subject to 36 percent reduction over six years, and the WGTA east is identified as an internal subsidy subject to 20 percent reduction. Now, in January, after Dunkel text came down on January 13 and all countries to report and most of the countries were in the process of reporting, the process of GATT resolution was looking relatively optimistic, as optimistic as it had for two years.

The member well knows how critical it is that we have a resolution in the GATT process. Now, if he is trying to link those comments about GATT with today's understanding of GATT or the WGTA, I mean, that is a very long bow for him to draw. The context in which they were discussed is the fact that if the Dunkel text is followed-and we do have to have a reduction in export subsidies. Canada desperately needs that, and if we are going

June 1, 19 92 LEGISL ATIVE ASSEM BLY OF MAN ITOBA 4004 to be identified, we had better do some changes in the process of how we identify it or pay it so that we can protect it and use it in the fashion it was intended. Now, if the member wants to just go along, okay, just leave it there. Let it be subject to whatever happens, and the Dunk el text does kick in somewhere in the future, and we are subject to those kinds of reductions, he is taking money right out of the pockets of farm ers. I am saying I want to keep the money in the pockets of farmers to help them in exporting grain.

So that is what the comments were made around, the fact that identifying it as an export subsidy west, internal support east, is going to cause reductions. I am sure the federal Minister of Fi

Document details

Collection	Manitoba — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	35-3-76a
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	35th 3rd hansardpdf 76a.pdf
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0538b03fb239565d2c22322449b18864a5877aa9

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).